User talk:John K/Archive 13

Editing talk pages

Sorry to disturb you, but... I noticed User:PhJ has deleted large chunks of discussion from the talk pages of Trentino-South Tyrol, South Tyrol, Bolzano and Merano. Can he do so unilaterally? Regards, Tridentinus 13:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was about to ask the very same thing... Taalo 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say this is bad form, but the whole dispute has tired me out, and I don't really feel like intervening. john k 16:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would of told my pal Tridentinus to ask another Admin. Actually, at this point he can delete the entire talk page and replace it with a German discussion if he wants -- it is getting very boring. How is the dissertation writing going by the way? The last six months are usually pretty killer. :\ Taalo 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, you were the first official I recognised starting from bottom up. I can surely ask someone else, but... who? Good luck with your dissertation! Tridentinus 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I fwded to Wknight94. He is slightly less annoyed by the T-AA/ST debates. :} Taalo 18:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

motion to close mediation

hello there,

there was a mediation offer quite a while ago concerning the issue of Trentino-South Tyrol. I am happy to announce that the issue has been discussed, voted upon and settled. However the mediation offer still needs to be officially closed. Please take a minute to visit the page Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Trentino-South Tyrol and put your signature at the bottom if you agree with the decision, thank you. sincerely Gryffindor 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• A very important note. This mediation offer concerned the greater overall naming convention to use in this region, not just the name of the region itself. We came up with a very good compromise for the regional name itself. I for one am still looking forward for Lar to help us out. Taalo 21:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Help Resolving a conflict

I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer 03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Revived discussion concerning fair use in portals

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

French princes

Hello John;

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#French princes revisited. Would you care to comment? Thanks. Charles 10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi John;

Since you're an admin, I thought you might know: Has reverting moves been restricted? I find myself unable to undo moves where I would normally be able to do that before. If not, have I accidentally had my privileges revoked? Thanks. Charles 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by Grafikbot 11:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WWI causes

I of course welcome your involvement - but please no profanities on the talk page, sbandrews (t) 13:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it brings in an unhelpful tone - like you are ridiculing me, I only seek to find a consensus as to what should and should not be present on the page, with the aim of finding the truth. The fact of the matter is that one editer has systematically removed all reference to the railroad and all reference to oil from all articles releating to WWI. Further when this has been questioned on the talk pages editors haave shouted (capitals :)) and ridiculed until objection is quashed. I will provide references, please take a look at my editing record and show me where I have failed to provide references. sbandrews (t) 14:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

now you have accused me of original research, and I haven't even written a single word - I am just discussing on the talk page - please withdraw the accusation and strike through your earlier unfriendly comments, sbandrews (t) 17:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Do modern sources have new information?

Since you mention you taught a course on the origins of World War I, and since there are calls to use recently written books and articles as sources to capture and put new information into context, can you tell us, in your opinion, what the key new primary sources after 1945? There were a few documents not found, unavailable, or missing relating to the Balkan origins of the war; but don't limit yourself to the list: 1. The minutes to the Franco-Russian summit of 1914 or a clear explanation of why no minutes were taken on either side.

2. The Buchlau Bargain draft that Isvolski told Aehrenthal he had sent to the Czar for approval.

3. The Montenegran police arrest report on Mohamed Mehmedbasic.

4. The Montenegran police report on the "escape" of Mohamed Mehmedbasic from jail.

5. The name and career record of the Montenegran civil servant who released Mohamed Mehmedbasic from Prison.

6. The service record and passport file of Russian General Victor Artamonov.

7. The service record and passport file of Russian Minister of War Alexander Ivanovic Werchovsky.

8. Prison records of the Salonika Trial Prisoners.

9. The report made by the French Sûreté Générale concerning its investigation into the Serbian Terrorist planning meeting held in Tolouse France in January 1914. See: “Documents Diplomatiques Francais III Serie 1911-14,3”, X Doc. 537, the misnumbered footnote indicated no response could be found.

10. The reports of Father Makarije and Father Zdravko Paunović to the Serbian "Corfu" Government on the confessions of the soon to be executed Apis, Malobabic, and Vulovic. Werchovsky (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a page's Extreme Makeover: Template:S-start/doc

You can find it here. I've also posted a message in the talk page of WikiProject Succession blah blah but it doesn't look like people visit that place often.

I'll be waiting feedback. Waltham 17:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold Sections

It says quite specifically that it "is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations." In this case, the country the person was King/Queen of is as much a part of their name in historiography as their ordinal. The variations, in this case, would be the toss up between X III, King of Y and X III of Y. Because the bolded section refers to, effectively, the legal, or historical, name of the person involved. Michael Sanders 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"In a slightly different form" would imply that the information is all still there, but written differently (e.g. Jeanne d'Arc as opposed to Joan of Arc); whereas, if the country the person was ruler of is omitted, then it is not a 'slightly different form', it is a deliberately and notably different and ambiguous form. Michael Sanders 00:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't part of the bold section. The manual of style is quite specific that the name should be bolded. Michael Sanders 00:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider, for example, Henry IV of France. He wasn't simply Henry IV - he was Henry III of Navarre. To write simply Henry IV in the bold confuses the issue. Michael Sanders 00:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your objection appeared to be that it was redundant to say X of France, was King of France. My changes removed that redundancy, and kept in step with the manual. Michael Sanders 00:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour?

As you have been involved in this little dispute, I would ask that you look at User:Michaelsanders' recent edits. I think his behaviour has been out of line, but I do not know the proper way of dealing with this. Srnec 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Queens

Hallo John, what do think of this situation? Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Maybe you can elaborate on Talk:King of the Romans. Could you also give your opinion on my solution of placing "Roman"(linked)-"German King"(linked) in the succession boxes? Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lord Reading

He was certainly born that, but apparently he changed his surname at some point (I can't quite work out when), and his descendants certainly seem to use the surname "Rufus Isaacs". Cracroft's lists him as "Rufus Daniel [Isaacs later Rufus Isaacs], 1st Baron Reading later 1st Viscount Reading later 1st Earl of Reading later 1st Marquess of Reading, GCB GCSI GCIE GCVO PC". Proteus (Talk) 23:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. As long as we don't remove the changed surname entirely I'm quite happy for it to be formatted however you feel best. Proteus (Talk) 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

Do you feel that most of the recent edits to this page are sound? Charles 00:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: U.S. Diplomatic representatives

See my reply on my talk page. ●DanMS • Talk 00:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Henrietta Anne Stuart

Hello John:
We are having a bit of a discussion about the proper title for this article: Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans, Henrietta Anne Stuart, Henrietta Anne of England or whatever; see Talk:Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans. I would appreciate your input on this issue. JdH 02:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

James Hepburn

Recently created page on James Hepburn, Bishop of Moray. Previously the page had been a redirect to James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell. I did this mostly because it was easiest and nicest, but please tell me if you think there is an issue of primary usage. The bishop is clearly not primary usage. Do you think he should be moved to James Hepburn (bishop) (the usual way of dabbing bishops)? And if so, should the page be redirect a redirect to Bothwell, or the dab page? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I carried that out. Old article is at James Hepburn (bishop), and James Hepburn now redirects to the dab page. Since you have the power, you might move James Hepburn (disambiguation) top James Hepburn. This option was blocked for me. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tudors

Thanks for the correction - I didn't have a chance to research it, just was trying to fix the edits that someone else made which were even less appropriate, to my mind. I actually wondered about this one, but left it in for the moment, assuming someone would come along and remove it if it was not supported by history. So thank you for doing so! DOn't know if you had a chance to look in on Talk - you might want to weigh in there. Tvoz |talk 23:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agree with leaving off the Anne-Wolsey part until it appears in the series.Tvoz |talk 05:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image:4th Duke of Marlborough.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:4th Duke of Marlborough.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Madmedea 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• All images, regardless of copyright status require source information - i.e. where the digital image came from: a scan, a website, your photograph - this applies equally to images that are in the public domain because of their age. An image without a source is like a fact without a reference - there is no way to check whether an image is what it says it is. Although it may seem a pain, Wikipedia policy is clear on this (WP:IUP#Rules of thumb). If you don't know where you originally got it from then I guess the next best thing is finding out where the painting is and providing that source information - or finding an alternative electronic source. By the way, I'm not deleting anything, I'm just tagging for a problem, its up to an admin to decide what to do. Madmedea 00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please remember to be civil. I have not done anything outside of WP policy. I do not see much point in having an encyclopaedia which is unreferenced - and that includes the images in it. I spend time referencing my additions to articles and ensuring any images I upload are fully described with copyright information and sources. I don't see the problem in tagging an image as lacking sources. I'm currently working, as are other editors, to transfer images that are suitable to Wikimedia commons, to do this they have to have a source tag - as they should on Wikipedia. So by asking a contributor to state their source this facilitates this process and removes images from wikipedia (by transferring them to commons) which don't need to be there. Madmedea 00:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• The policy is available at WP:IUP which states "Always specify on the description page where the image came from, such as scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer" and "It is important, even in the case of public domain images, to specify the source of the image. However, if the public domain status of the image is not in doubt, such an image should not be deleted simply because the source is not specified". Remember, I'm not deleting anything, but I used the tag that I thought was most appropriate from Wikipedia:Template messages/Image namespace to highlight that the image did not have a source. I did not use a speedy delete tag!. Madmedea 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• User:Mangojuice has just edited the image policy to state that that PD images won't be deleted for lack of sources - which as an Admin I guess they have the right to do - and they're the ones who review the images! I'm sorry about the bot message - when I realised that it wasn't going down well I started to add my own explanation to the bottom which elicited more positive responses. And honestly, I don't have a vendetta or anything, I just want Wikipedia to be as good as it can be - and for me referencing is really important (just look at my List of Pre-Raphaelite paintings which is a work in progress). I think we need a new tag specifically for PD images to request sources... one that isn't so confrontational! For now I think if I spot something I'll used the mainspace {{unreferenced}} tag even if it is the wrong one. Madmedea 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Can you check the sources that I added for Abkhazia in Talk:List of sovereign states and let me know if they are any good? Apparently not because some people keep deleting it and I don't want to add anything that is not supported by sources. I spent a lot of my own time on finding these sources and I can try to find sources for other things that people might need, but I won't waste my time if no one takes them seriously.--Britlawyer 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If they don't care what the sources say then what are we even doing here? Ask for mediation and I'll participate.--Britlawyer 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Bratislava"

Dear John,

Since you are both an academic in the field of European history and an active contributor to Wikipedia, I wonder if you could entertain an idea with me.

I've seen numerous claims (both here and in print) that the origin and/or reason for adoption of the name Bratislava is shrouded in mystery. Since the name was only adopted in 1919, at the close of WWI, I find it hard to believe that such a mystery can't be pierced.

Of course, Wikipedia isn't the place for original research, which is why I'm asking you to look at the question with me along a different line, if you have the time and inclination. Together I believe that we should be able to answer the questions:

• Is the origin of the name really a mystery? and, if not,
• What *is* its origin?

I would be very interested to collaborate with you on researching the question. As I'm situated in Bratislava, and both have personal connections with people working in the Slovak National Archives and work full-time as a Slovak to English translator, I could lend research and translation support on this end. Your academic connections in the US should serve to close the gaps in access to material that isn't available to me, as well as make any potential resulting paper publishable.

Please let me know (on talk or in email) if you're interested in such a collaboration.

MikeGogulski 01:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

John, I answered your message on my talk page, so I stopped by your talk page in quite a different case. There is a new user account, Olivierdb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently founded only to reinsert your old reverted edit of Bratislava. Please see Talk:Bratislava#Sockpuppetry.3F. Obviously, I do not believe it is your sockpuppet, but I would love to hear your opinion. We have had many problems with disruptive sockpuppetry in articles about Slovakia (caused by VinceB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and this seems to be a purely disruptive account founded by someone from Wikipedia, not an account of a newbie. It does not look very good when you are engaged in a discussion while your opinion is being pushed by a suspicious account. Tankred 15:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Britlawyer

Hi, thanks for your note, I've replied on my page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks against you

In addition to the personal attack where your account was accused of abusive sockpuppetry here [1] to which you replied here [2] your edits(which I resotred) are now called "POV" "change the names of Slovak cities into a non-Slovak version" [3] and also "disruptive" and "not real contributions."(same place). This happened after you made an edit to Bratislava IMO improving the article. I feel that your edits were NPOV and improving the encylopedia this is why I decided to endorse your edit and restored it. These accusations of your edit being called "POV", "disruptive", and others I feel are only the start. You should watch out for more personal attacks from the same editors because as far as I can tell they are way too passionate about their edits and you made an edit they did not like. Olivierdb 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is non sense. John, those difflinks are not about you, but about User:Olivierdb, plausibly a "bad hand" sockpuppet of someone from Wikipedia (or, quite likely, a banned user). For some unknown reason, he/she has tried to sabotage our common effort to reach consensus on Talk:Bratislava by reverts of the article, by various accusation posted at WP:ANI, and now by this. Tankred 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes all the diffs are about edits made by John. What I did was I merely endorsed and restored an edit he made, that was never my edit to begin with. Now this restoration of your edit John is dubbed as "sabotage" above. Also an attack took place earlier to which the response was [4]. Diffs show that these attacks happened. Olivierdb 19:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Olivier, why don't you participate in the talk page discussion rather than continuing to revert, if you're interested in the issue? john k 20:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Diacritical symbols

Okay, I'll be careful. Regards. There is also a "god-damned weird" template in Talat Pasha article :) Cretanforever 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll on Bratislava

Thank you for your participation in the discussion regarding the use of the names "Bratislava" and "Pressburg" on Talk:Bratislava. I would like also to invite you to a poll that will show us the real support for the two alternatives. I hope the poll will help us reach consensus and close this case so we can move on to other improvements of that (hopefully) future featured article. You can access the poll at Talk:Bratislava#Poll. I look forward to your opinion. Tankred 05:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Kubura

Halo John. I've seen that you was recently involved in some dicussion in the article "Republic of Ragusa", so that you have known Kubura. My opinion is that this user has became a serious problem. I am tired to spent time to revert his several vandalism. Because you are an administrator, I ask you a suggestion. Of course I can show that my ideas about Kubura are well supported. --Giovanni Giove 13:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:S-ptd

Template:S-ptd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Waltham, The Duke of 14:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You can see more about this here. The vote is not expected to be a thriller or anything; the Project only wishes to get rid of a redundant template.

Basically, I am afraid you should visit the Project's talk page more often; there are several issues that need to be dealt with. Right now it seems to be forgotten by almost all members of the Project.

Also, there is a working version of the /Guidelines subpage at User:The Duke of Waltham/SBS and any input, either a good idea or a simple comment, would be greatly appreciated.

Have a nice day.

Waltham, The Duke of

WikiProject Philadelphia Invite

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
Sunday July 8, 2007
Time: 5:00 pm
Location: It will be in Center City, Philadelphia at 112 North 9th Street Philadelphia, PA 19107.
Tel: (215) 829-8939

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

States of the US category

Hi there, it's not required to add the state articles themself to the category - they've part of the State category which is already a sub-category of Category:States of the United States. Thanks/wangi 18:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic article rule. john k 18:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well that's certainly different from the last time I read it. It really would help if you used edit summaries though. Thanks/wangi 18:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I really really hate this category

Response at Category talk:Articles lacking sources. Jeepday (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Baring family

Hello. I stumbled across your comment at Talk:Baring and have left a message for you there. Regards, Tryde 19:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIII - June 2007

The June 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 14:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Full name of the Danish queen

I've reverted your last edit to Margrethe II of Denmark. The thorn doesn't appear in the Danish alphabet, but Danish almost always spells personal names using native forms, and this rule always applies when it comes to names from the Nordic Countries. You can see an example on the monarchy's official website: http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_dk_familien_dronningen. Interestingly, the accent over the O is missing on the official page. The reason for the odd name is that her grandfather, King Christian X, was still king of Iceland at the time of her birth, so the royal family decided to include a proper Icelandic name. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Researching Wikipedia Online Survey

We are conducting research into the role of social norms in online communication. This research is funded by the European Union and is being undertaken by a coalition of European Universities (see http://emil.istc.cnr.it/?q=node/8). The research is designed to help us understand how social norms interact with the technology that supports online collaboration. We have selected 35 Wikipedia articles flagged as controversial for study. We are analysing the interactions on the discussion pages and are also seeking additional input from contributors to those discussions.

As a participant in the recent discussion about a controversial topic - German Democratic Republic, I would be very grateful if you could follow the link to a simple questionnaire. This should take only 2 minutes to complete.

http://survey.soc.surrey.ac.uk//public/survey.php?name=wiki_norms

Bugs-Bunny Bunny 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Doctor (Doctor Who)

Hi, this is meant as a helpful FYI. While the IP chappie probably shouldn't've reverted the neutral position while we're still discussing this, I think your revert technically puts you in danger of flouting WP:3RR; the rule is for 24 hour periods, not calendar days. Cheers. Mark H Wilkinson 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Admin

Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help John. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 02:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Baron Campbell

Nowadays, undoubtedly, yes, it would be needed. As I'm sure you know, they weren't so fussy back then. Especially when the clashing title was in the Scottish or Irish Peerage. Proteus (Talk) 12:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Cracroft's lists the creation as "Baron Campbell, of St Andrews in the County of Fife". Burke's also calls the current holder "The Lord Stratheden and Campbell". The London Gazette also has the shorter version: The Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to be passed under the Great Seal, granting the dignity of a Baron of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland unto Sir John Campbell, Knt. Her Majesty's Attorney General, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, stile, and title of Baron Campbell, of St. Andrew's, in the county of Fife. Proteus (Talk) 14:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Pennsylvania

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

• Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
• Join our mailing list
• Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 03:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

British monarchy

Thanks for your contribution to the resolution of the current editorial issues there. I hope, though, that you won't mind moving most of your comments to the "Discussion", and leaving only a brief version in the "Survey". If you like, just put "Support. See my comments in the Discussion." It is quite important, for sake of clarity, that the survey not become a debate arena, and you'll notice that Gbambino06/G2bambino promptly added a riposte right below your comments. If this sort of stuff goes on, the survey is liable to become as cluttered and tangled as the rest of the debate has gotten, largely defeating the survey's purpose, which is to separate out and make clear the relative levels of support and oppostion. If you'll just move your comments down to the discussion (leaving some brief statement instead), and Gbambino's response with them , that'll nip this problem in the bud, without any loss to anyone's contribution.
Thanks for your (hoped-for) cooperation. -- Lonewolf BC 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure - feel free to move it yourself. john k 04:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again. -- Lonewolf BC 06:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Euro birth and death date templates

You are correct about not putting a TfD warning on every page which uses these templates however could you explain what you mean in this edit summary by "So far as I can tell, it is not, in fact, being considered for deletion"? Is there something wrong with the way these templates have been nominated for deletion? Thanks Patleahy 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kings of Carthage

Hi, I was wondering where you got that List of Monarchs of Carthage you created in 2004? It's very interesting, I've been looking for something like this for some time. Also, it would be nice to have a source cited in the article. Best, --91.148.159.4 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007

The July 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good advice

I was running out of steam and patience anyway. Lol. Take care.--PericlesofAthens 03:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Archbishop of Canterbury List

Thank you for your input. Would you belive I cut and pasted the discussion in to MS Word and it was almost 12 pages long! It IS time for a solution. -- SECisek 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

UK Election Conservative - Liberal Unionist data

Your figures don't add up. In 1886, the seat count is 393, but your split figures of (316 + 78) add up to 394. In 1892 for a seat count of 313, 268 + 47 adds up to 315. The final one, 1900 does add up. Out of interest what is your source? The seat figures seem to add up nicely to 670 in all those elections around that time, which might suggest there is a slight error in the split count (possibly an overlap of those listed as Liberal when they should be in Liberal Unionist?). Mikebloke 09:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. Mikebloke 16:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

HRE

Well seeing ur a History phd student I won't argue about it with you then.Tourskin 22:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"United Kingdom" or "Great Britain"

Hi, I'm a student interested in Great Britain and Ireland. I have a question about the modern United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom's ISO country code is GB and GBR, not UK. UK has joined Olympic Games as "Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland" (shortenly, just "Great Britain"), not the "United Kingdom". Why UK use "Great Britain" rather than the "United Kingdom" in these situations? It seems to me that there are some political reasons. Do you know the reason? ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 15:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, that some day United Kingodom became a Republic of Great Britain (maybe soon), and definition "United Kingodom" will lose a sense. Great Britain is a definiton of nation, but "United Kingodom" is a definition of current political status.--User:212.98.173.133 20:21 01.08.2007 (UTC)

Church of Ireland

I know you had a complaint there as well, so I went to see if I could do any rewriting to improve it - as I hope I did at 39 Articles. I am very sorry, but the text you removed is not Anglo-Catholic propaganda but one of the top three most important facts about the Church according to the Church's own "About us" Website: The Church of Ireland: About us

I added it back in along with point number two which was absent and cited accordingly. I do grant that there may be some degree of Anglo-Catholic POV here at Wikipedia, I suspect that is because of the wider POV of the communion at this point in history. Times are difficult in the Anglican world right now, as I am sure you know. Is it systemic bias that causes Erastianism to not have it its own artice? No, it probably is that nobody working on the Wikiproject has the desire, knowledge, or ability to write it. I know I don't. Why did the 39 Articles look the way it did? Easy, that how the Articles are taught today IF, and that is a big IF, IF they are taught at all. I am a convert to the Anglican Church and I have never once seen the 39 Articles in a religious sense. My only knowledge of them comes from my "History to 1688" days at a secular University.

Please don't accuse the confused of bad faith, edit where you feel it is needed and I will support you everywhere I can. Thank you for your interest in these articles. I believe your challenge has already improved the 39 Articles and, by way of additional research, my Cranmer pet-project as well. Thank you, again. -- SECisek 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Old Style and New Style dates

Please have a look at Talk:Old Style and New Style dates#Two different interpretations I would appreciate you input.-- Philip Baird Shearer 16:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right

Like Fomenko, Poggio doesn't deserve that amount of attention. As I said to what's-his-face (who doesn't sign his posts), I'm not going to be writing much there from now on anyways. I think in the previous posts I made on the talk page (which probably amount to about 6 or 7 sheets of typed pages now) I got out most of my steam. Although it will be tempting to respond to them every once in a while, I think I'm done with them.--PericlesofAthens 19:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WCC members...

Since the list of members at World Council of Churches is likely to change over time, could you cite where this list came from and also the date it is accurate as of? Thanks! --MattWright (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting... From looking at the first link I would tend to think that isn't an all-inclusive list, since it has a link at the top that says "Propose a new link." It makes me think it is only a list of churches with web sites known to the WCC. The second link looks more authoritative, but is copyright 2001. So I don't know what the best solution is, except maybe to note we don't know for sure if this list is all-inclusive or that we think it is as of 2001, etc. --MattWright (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007

The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bathory

Dear John, what do you think about this? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply.

I have discovered another issue: there are various articles on History of Poland and the Kingdom of Poland. Personally I think the existence of various articles on the Kindom of Poland superfluous and silly (and most do contain little more than lists of Kings, and identical template (with "fictional" establishment dates):

• Kingdom of Poland (1025–1138)
  
• Kingdom of Poland (1138–1320)
  
• Kingdom of Poland (1320–1385)
  
• Kingdom of Poland (1385–1569)
  

I think them redundant among each other and also when considering the fact that there are articles

• History of Poland (966–1385)
• History of Poland (1385–1569)

What do you think? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear John, someone has reverted my moving Stephen Bathory. I have now requested the move, as suggested by the reverter. Maybe you can join in on the talk page. I have also implement my "Kingdom" changes and hope they'll stand. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear John, please do comment on Talk:Stefan_Batory. It seems urgent. Otherwise, the whole will get buried by a supposed lack of consensus just because of one single editor disagreeing for no particular reason. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

BZ

Could you give an opinion john k? Thanks, Icsunonove 17:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

vote on decapitalizing Commonwealth R/realm

A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 01:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

leagues

Thanks for your message a year ago on Far right leagues. I've corrected the mistake. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 23:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), am I correct in supposing that guidelines do not change even when there is 2 to 1 support in favour of a new suggestion? I feel morally inclined to edit new guidelines into the page, but am using my experience-harvested judgment not to (and that's besides the fact that changing the examples linked accordingly would result in red links, which would be rather silly). But no-one is saying anything, and no-one appears to be willing to do anything. Also, I made a suggestion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Western clergy) about a way to guide titles in bishops articles (badly needed in my view), and likewise, not a response. I mean, as you know I am not a fan of the processes which have led to guidelines (this is Calgacus btw), and much of the time I get them quoted at me, these guidelines weren't designed with the specific matter in mind and are often completely inappropriate for the subject at hand, so I'm trying to work within the system. But this is not increasing my faith in it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

We NEED clearer guidelines. -- SECisek 07:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I'd be pleased if you mulled it over. I'm going to be quite busy (and that's an understatement if ever there was one) until next Friday in any case. Changed my name btw because my profile was the second thing to come up on a google of "calgacus", and that began to bother me too much. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Page Move

Hello john k, could you help us move South Tyrol to Province of Bolzano-Bozen as found through our discussions? It requires an admin to move the page because of Province of Bolzano-Bozen existing already. Icsunonove 21:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

South Tyrol location

Now that South Tyrol has been moved to Province of Bolzano-Bozen, if you care, please add your opinion on the future of South Tyrol here: Talk:Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen#Whither_South_Tyrol.3F. — AjaxSmack 00:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: move request for major U.S. cities in progress

John, last year on my talk page you wrote:

If you want to restart the discussion, I'd continue to favor changing the rule (but only for major cities - I think the default should be "City, State," but that if it's clear that an American city is the primary use, we should move it to just "City").

I thought you might be interested in knowing that the rule has already changed, and that there is a current move request poll active which proposes almost exactly what you said you would support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Requested_moves --Serge 00:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:India page

Hi John, As a historian and as someone who has taken part in discussions on the Talk:India page, would you like to comment in the RfC here, about a content dispute in the History section of India. At issue is the question of what credit to apportion to whom in the Indian Freedom Movement. There are two statements, both long, so a first cursory read is advised. At your convenience. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Help

Hi john k, please, please help key an eye on Province of Bolzano-Bozen. We had a great group of editors (including yourself!) finally move this page to the multilingual provincial name, as cited in Brittanica (!!). Gryffindor is now having a hissy fit and saying this is the work of some "Italian" sham vote. [5] Gryffindor is going back and reverting edits in mass [6]. I've personally had enough of Gryffindor's abuses on Wikipedia. Please give advice on how we can have him investigated for the Administrative abuses he has been guilty of since 2005. Icsunonove 05:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

House of Brunswick-Lunenburg

Hi John, can you take a look at this? I am trying to find the proper designations for these dukes. Thanks! Charles 16:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for the message. I know what Wiki's policy is on the matter, but outside of the main space I retain Anglicized spelling. There's a disclaimer on my page of the descendants. When you have the time to poke at it, just edit the page directly if you want, separating it into sections. Charles 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You're Invited!

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Dravidian civilizations. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Dravidian related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

Wiki Raja 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Province of Bolzano-Bozen (BZ)

If you could please put in your opinion at the talk page, as a certain user has returned. Icsunonove 00:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Hi. There has been a big debate over this policy. I think you have valuable experience that makes you an important interlocutor on this matter. I suggest you first go here for a very concise account, and then depending on how much time you have read over the WP:NOR policy and the edit conflicts that led to its being protected, or the last talk to be archived ... or just go straight to the talk page. If you have time Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

King of Great Britain title

I'm no legal beagle when it comes to the UK's unification history, but Lord Loxley has a 'interesing' view of it. GoodDay 22:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The personal union between the UK and Hanover (1714-1837), I wish I'd thought of that (in my discussions with Loxley). Great example. GoodDay 00:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 09:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Epic Barnstar
		For the impressively immense work on European history rarely matched both within and outside the Wikipedia, I award John Kenney the Epic BarnstarPaxEquilibrium 20:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

continued conflict at NOR

Hi, I don't think we are any closer to a resolution - I hope you will check in from time to time and add such comments as you feel appropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

SBS membership renewal request—Project in great need of contributors

The summer has passed (unless you live in the Southern Hemisphere), and for most people holidays are over. Therefore, it is time for work again. Not that work ever stops in Wikipedia, but I believe we can at last get over the stage when slow progress can be taken for granted. Like yourself, most members of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization have been away during most of the summer (and some of you have been away for much longer); this lack of contributors has almost led SBS activity to a standstill.

A couple of members have stayed, however, and things have greatly improved in the project. There is a renovated and functional main page; the talk page has organised archives and a dedicated page for archived proposals; the Guidelines page is in a very good shape and I am preparing a further set of guidelines to be proposed for adoption by the project and incorporation into the page; the Documentation page has been again updated and a potential restructuring is being planned; the Templates list is the operations centre for the ongoing removal of antiquated and redundant templates. The Offices page is the only one that has yet to be improved, but there is a proposal for that one as well. Even a new SBS navbox has been created and added to the project's pages, easing navigation between the different parts of the WikiProject, while shortcuts have been created for the three most basic pages.

And the project itself is not the only thing that has been improved; the headers system has been cleared up and rationalised during the last six months, and a new parameter system is being inserted into templates like s-new and s-vac in order to successfully adapt succession boxes to more tricky cases of succession without large, clumsy cells or redundant reasoning. S-hou has also been improved and /doc pages have been added to most of the headers' pages, as well as to many proper succession templates' ones.

Despite all these breakthroughs that have made SBS a better, more functional and more user-friendly WikiProject, things move excruciatingly slowly as far as the adoption of proposals and correction/improvement of succession boxes in the mainspace are concerned. As has been mentioned, this is due to the utter absence of all but two of its members. I completely understand that a few of them might be unwilling to resume work in SBS, and some of them might even have left Wikipedia altogether. However, we are certain that there are people intent to continue improving Wikipedia's succession boxes and helping others to do so as well. If you are one of them, please return. And even if you cannot help at the moment, but want to contribute at a later time, please let us know by renewing your membership. You can do that very easily by removing the asterisk next to your name in the member list in SBS's main page. The deadline is 31 October; members that do not renew their memberships until 23:59 of that day will be removed from the list, as these members will be assumed to have left the project for good.

SBS is a project highly capable of doing some serious work in Wikipedia. These potentials are seriously undermined by the unavailability of helpful hands. I hope you shall consider this message seriously before taking any decisions.

Thank you for your time. Waltham, The Duke of 14:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Philly meetup #5

Please look at Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 5 and give your input about the next meet-up. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list. BrownBot 21:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglican collaboration of the month

Wassupwestcoast 04:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - |WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVII - October 2007

The October 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 09:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Earl of Glencairn

I note you commenced this page. My view is the numbering is out. the 2nd Earl was denied the use of the title by the 1488 Act Recissory, but that was overturned retrospectively by the 1503 Act Revocatory. Burkes (1848), and Wood's version of Douglas (1813) give him as the second earl. Anderson (1867), whilst not affording him the actual title in his lifetime nevertheless counts him as second earl as is evident by subsequent earls. I'll see what i can do. For instance William the 8th is in fact the 9th. The numbering thereafter is correct. I shall see what I can do, but I don't know how to change the title pages. Can you assist here? Regards, David Lauder 17:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Asharid-apal-Ekur

An article that you have been involved in editing, Asharid-apal-Ekur, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asharid-apal-Ekur. Thank you. Tiptoety 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 5

File:LOVE Park fountain.jpg

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
November 11, 2007
Time: 5:00 pm
Location: Buca Di Beppo, 258 South 15th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102.

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

You have received this message because you are on the invite list, you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bulk creation of english nobility articles on Genealogy wikia.

I know you have not contributed recently to Genealogy wikia, but I came across your name while working on example articles that support fancy tabbed interfaces and multilingual articles eg [7] (particularly important for the nobility of normandy- they pretty much have to be at least english and french). I am not writing to solicit your active participation again, but I thought you might be interested in the direction we are going. Via Bot, I plan to move over large numbers of WP articles on European aristocrats, and have successfully done such runs on US presidents WP articles eg [8] that harvest the Infobox information for inclusion into our Info pages (a structured wiki approach to serve the strong need of data sharing in genalogical sites). We also copy the wp article for modification to a more family history perspective biographical treatment.

I'd like whatever opinion you can contribute on that harvesting operation for the English nobility, as I about to run those import real soon now. My user talk page on Genealogy wikia is here [9] Thanks Mak 21:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Very specifically, which Template:Infobox British Royalty fields specific to nobility should be moved over to genealogy? I don't want to junk up the data structure with fields that folks won't use, but for example I could put in reign dates, successor/ predecessor, coronation if there is any point in storing them dynamically. I don't expect there is much doubt/ controversy about when William I reigned, so it is kind of pointless to store them in more complicated way so that they can be changed quickly from a central place. But lesser known nobility- maybe some of this information does evolve over time. If so, then it makes sense to store them this way. I don't know the domain like you experts do- Anyway that is the specific request. Of course if you have any more general observations, those are welcome too. EG- content blindspots- "since you can bring over images from the WP article, then for gosh sakes pick up the images from commons and French wikipedia too- there are a ton of them not cat'ed on Commons and they are high quality." Mak 22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We are talking only Royalty because it appears there are no infoboxes for nobility on WP at this time. I will drop regent but otherwise will merge all the fields from british royalty and monarch and support them. Thanks for your input. Mak 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rarelibra

Hey john k, it is well known he does not like the decision that was taken on the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page, but he has gone around removing my text from the various talk pages as well. I won't even try to warn him, I'd rather an Admin set him straight (yet again). He may not like what I bring up, but he can't go around and selectively edit my posts in the talk page. cheers, Icsunonove 03:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, nevermind. He sent me threatening e-mails now. Pmanderson reported him at ANI, and somehow Future Perfect wants me topic banned from the T-AA pages. Gosh, nice to be back on Wikipedia! :-) Icsunonove 08:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Made up stuff

Greetings John. Hope you're doing well. I've come across some brain-numbing and very probably made-up stuff that you may be better able to judge, or know who can. House of Crêpon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was rather too silly, so I just deleted it. It seems possible that there could be a grain of truth in House of Candia, and Gilbert, Count of Brionne was once a perfectly normal piece of medievalcruft, but seems to be rather bizarre now. Other suspicious material includes François de Candie and Cecilia Maria de Candia (which I think is rather a giveaway that this is Wikipedia being used as someone's surrogate Rootsweb). Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Theobald Walter, 1st Baron Butler or Theobald Walter

User:Angusmclellan suggested I head over your way with this problem child. I was working on his brother, Hubert Walter, and created the page for him from his son's entry, which gave the title. However, after some more edits, and consulting the Complete Peerage, it appears that the title may not have existed. I fully admit to knowing very little about Irish affairs, especially the Normans in Ireland, but Angus suggested you might know more? Thanks in advance! Ealdgyth | Talk 19:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, a little digging shows that Magna Carta in 1215 Magna Carta refers to "barons" but generally English peerage law uses baron as a title that is created by summons to Parliment. However, the WP article on Baron has more nuance. I just know generalist historian knowledge on this stuff, since I actually studied the Anglo Norman period and concentrate more on ecclesiastical matters. I'm inclined to think that with both DNB and CP saying that there was no barony of Butler, that we need to either go with Theobald Butler or Theobald Walter, and I have no idea which is more used in Irish history, honestly. Probably need to change Theobald's son too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 20:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Russian Grand Duchesses

Hello John;

You were interested in the naming of grand duchesses before, but the topic a while ago at WT:NC(NT) died down. I have reposted the topic with some simple choices of forms of names for grand duchesses by marriage. I think it's basically settled/agreed upon that grand duchesses by birth are titled Grand Duchess X Patronymic of Russia, with "Grand Duchess" dropped for queens consort. I only briefly mentioned the topic of regularizing the patronymics. I first want to regularize the titles of the articles. You can see the new topic by clicking the following link: WT:NC(NT)#Russian grand duchesses naming convention. Charles 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi John;

Thank you for your thoughts on the Russian grand ducal naming. After this is dealt with, perhaps patronymics can be investigated. Until then, would you might taking a look at, and possibly voting for, the proposal on the naming of non-"Majesty" consorts? It is located not far above the Russian grand ducal naming segment at WT:NC(NT)#Proposal on consorts. Again, thanks. Charles 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Christian X in MILHIST project

MILHIST is currently going through an assessment drive of articles that were flagged by a bot as potentially being relevant to the project. This involves sorting through the results and marking those that aren't relevant, while assessing those that are if they haven't been already. Christian X of Denmark was one of the results that was flagged, which is why I took a look at it to see if it did fall within the scope of the project. I decided to add him to MILHIST on the basis of his role as a war leader during the German occupation. As to Denmark not being at war with Germany during World War II, wouldn't you think that an invasion and occupation by one country of another to constitute a state of war between the two, declared or not? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Our definitions of what constitutes a state of war between two countries seem to be in conflict here. My interpretation of "Denmark remained neutral from the outbreak of the war" is that it was neutral after September 1, 1939. However a German invasion and then Military occupation de facto made it a member of the Allies and it's included here: Allies of World War II#Dates on which independent states joined the Allies. It doesn't matter if the Danes resisted for a few hours or held out for weeks before falling in the case of France, as soon as the shooting started the two were at war regardless of whether or not it was declared. "Never declaring war on the Germans" means they couldn't get the declaration out since the invasion was so fast and they had then surrendered, so why would they then do so and make it harder for themselves with superior German armies on Danish soil? Denmark was hardly the only country during World War II that was attacked without any declaration of war. Its role during World War II also makes it tangential or peripheral - it was used as base for the invasion of Norway and we have articles of reasonable length like Occupation of Denmark and Danish resistance movement as well as more specific ones. Sure it wasn't as important a sphere of operations such as say France or Italy, but its smaller role hardly make it insignificant. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the article from the project's scope. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Burial Ground

We're currently in a discussion at that article, concerning the Commonwealth realms, feel free to chip in. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We've already agreed on the articles having British and a footnote. It's the footnote content that's being discussed. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, suggesting an editor should be banned, may not help the atmosphere of the discussion. Just an observation. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of banning 'registered users'. Though, I agree with G2's all are equal stance, I've decided (for the sake of ending the edit-wars) to go with a minimal usage (in this case a footnote), respecting the more common usage of British. Like UpDown, I'm just eager for the schism to end, that's all. As I've said earler, compromise is a Wiki-dirty word, but would you rather edit-wars? Obviously, I can't force anyone to compromise (nor do I assume to), I'm just asking for a truce from both sides (a happy ending). GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if I came across as suggesting G2 be the sole author of the 'footnote', that's wasn't my intent. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ban

I might remind you to be careful with your utterances about having me banned. Adopting a chilling effect does not reflect well on you, not to mention that it puts you a hair-breadth away from violation of WP guidelines. --G2bambino (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you didn't actually threaten a ban; you expressed that I should be banned. Hence, I said you're a hair-breadth away from violating policy. Your opinions, however, are noted. --G2bambino (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Burial Ground, Part II

Is it possible to exclude TharkunColl & G2bambino from the discussion? Their cat fighting is annoying. I ask this with a heavy heart, as I value both editors (they have more in common, then they would ever admit). GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but I wanted to ask: would it be better if I just ignored him? That's an honest question, and I can do so if it's for the best and not interpreted as some kind of childish reaction. --G2bambino (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikiproject British Royalty

Sorry to bug you but [10] I don't think you were supposed to change that even if you disagreed with the "result". it does say

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Care to explain? (btw...i don't have an opinion on this issue and all the moves and whatnots)  Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  17:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Page movements

Hello JK. I'm getting the impression that Tharky may not accept British monarchy being moved (if the consensus calls for a move) & may cause disruptions over it. I'm hoping my fears are unfounded of course. Keeping my fingers crossed. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I know you won't cause disruptions; It's Tharky's postings that's got me worried. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's hoping Tharky will 'play nice'. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Some advice

Hello John,

I'm in a bit of a quagmire - the same since almost two years now - and would like to ask your seasoned advice.

To start with, my problem seems to be personal more than anything: we are very few - next to none, actually - to edit the Paris pages. In addition to making the content as informative as possible, I've done my best to make them concord to existing reference. Unfortunately there are a few contributors - one namely - that would like English readers to 'know' Paris in a 'grander' way, meaning that he/they try to make the city seem bigger than it is - I'm not sure of the motivation, but perhaps those concerned live in the suburbs. Paris may be backwards in some ways, but we can't pretend things are otherwise - if you remember the "Paris region" debate, I'm sure you get a precise picture.

The problem is that, to forward this agenda, a few have adopted an "international terminology" based on the American system that has never been used by any French institution, and this in spite of existing English translations published by the source of all demographic data - the very official French INSEE statistics institution. The problem with this is that, as few English readers really know what is or isn't in French demographics, the 'international terms' "sound good" to English-speaking those who don't know any better - worse still, one of those promoting this misuse makes it a point of contacting those who don't know any better when it comes time to vote for anything - In addition to using sock-puppets when even these can't be found in sufficient numbers.

So now we're in a vote that will most likely result in the passing of an inventive and unverifiable terminology - and the promotion of the same - that is not only WP:OR, but goes against every official source, even against the very documents cited as support for phrases with misplaced terminology.

What to do in this sort of case? Just let it go? Where can we go for an educated opinion - or at least one that will take into account the obvious facts presented to them? THEPROMENADER 18:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm monarchies

Concerning the Poll that's taking place (monarchy articles), what exactly is Lonewolf BC trying to do? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to be sure. I intially thought, Lonewolf was having a fit. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A most odd thing for anyone to suppose. -- Lonewolf BC 22:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman Emperor > Byzantine line > Trastamara line > Holy Roman Empire?

When this happened, did Charles V will the Imperial title to his brother Ferdinand, in order to strengthen the legitimacy of the title "Holy Roman Emperor", or did it truly settle in the list of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that is what I thought myself. What is the source text which asserts this claim of title transference, word for word? Don't worry, I can translate it myself--if it's in the Latin script. Thanks. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Burial Ground (again)

You may want to look at what is taking place on this, and I hope that you will. G2bambino is, I think, making moves which do not accord with what was agreed. See the latest commentary at Talk:Commonwealth realm and Talk:Royal Burial Ground, following from G's try at changing "Royal Burial Ground" so that its "British Royal Family" link leads instead to a section of "Commonwealth realm". -- Lonewolf BC 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea that might solve things & make everyone happy (or maybe not), take a peek. GoodDay 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIX - December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 11:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_titles_and_honours_of_the_Spanish_Crown#Proof_of_Byzantine_inheritance

A user has reverted against consensus. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?

Hello JK, there are questionable edits at Louis-Antoine, Duke of Alougome and Henry, comte de Chambod articles & relating French articles. Also I've posted at Wikipedia: WikiProject France, Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography/Royalty and List of French monarchs concerning these edits. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what's next for royalty content. Will editors declare Juan Carlos I as becoming King of Spain in 1977 (when his father renounced his throne rights)? and will they have JC's father Juan, Count of Barcelona as King of Spain from 1941 to 1977? We must all be carful of rewriting history. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the editor who made the questionable edits at Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angouleme and Henri, comte de Chambord (the edits were made in January 2007) and contacted him. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Mongols

I am *so* happy that our paths are intersecting on this, as I have great respect for your knowledge from previous debates. It's been awhile though, hasn't it! Last time was Polish monarchs, I think?

As a quick summary: PHG has been running me ragged with POV forks and (in my opinion) biased POV-pushing for months now. He's effectively trying to rewrite history, and has been escalating this to multiple articles. I've posted on multiple WikiProjects asking for help, but it's been really hard to get people commenting since it's such specific and relatively obscure history. And then even when I have gotten 4 or 5 editors into the page to comment and prove a consensus, PHG has continued to defy everyone, insisting that we don't have enough of a consensus to make a difference. It doesn't matter what kind of a talkpage consensus we get, PHG just keeps on reverting. And since he and I have been the only ones really editing the page, it's just been a stalemate.

I've been working my way through the steps of WP:DR, with little success: I've tried consensus-building, polite messages to PHG's talkpage, posts to ANI, requests for third-party comment, and even mediation, which was finally cancelled after about a month because of lack of movement. If at all possible, I'd rather avoid having to go to ArbCom about this, so if there's anything that you can think of to do, to help break the logjam, that would be awesome. :) I realize that the talkpage is confusing (especially because PHG is really good at starting multiple threads), but for a "nutshell" version, check here: User:Elonka/Mongol quickref.

The whole situation is a bit sad, because on many subjects, PHG is an amazing editor, has gotten a few articles to FA (though one was recently delisted after a long fight) and he's brilliant in terms of coming up with lots of high quality images. But on this "Franco-Mongol alliance" issue, he just refuses to back down or cooperate with other editors.  :/ I hope you can stick around and help, because I think if we could just break the stalemate, the article could be gotten to FA status fairly easily! --Elonka 08:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a deeply disturbing situation, to know that we have an editor who's so good at making articles look well-sourced, that people are waving them through as FAs, even though they're full of crap.  :/ That makes what PHG is doing especially dangerous to Wikipedia. I'm glad you can see his behavior for what it is. I may not have to file an ArbCom case after all!  :) --Elonka 18:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to your idea, but I agree that one of the main sticking points, is simply a manpower issue. We just plain don't have the experts available to offer peer-review.

However, I think there's another solution. I think we need to make better procedures for dealing with tendentious editing. Right now the policies are pretty toothless. We tell someone, "Don't do that," and if they're sloppy, maybe they get a 3RR warning, but then if they move on to other articles, they're hard to track if they move into another field.

So my feeling is that we need to be more aggressive about identifying editors who engage in POV-pushing, and that we need to just plain block them from Wikipedia, even if they have proven to be useful in other subject areas. We have pretty clear policies on civility and NPA and sockpuppetry, but when it comes to the concept of an editor lying, misrepresenting sources, or adding false information, it's very rare that I see administrator action taken. Getting rid of such a problem editor usually requires months of bureaucracy, consuming dozens of hours of time from "good" editors to deal with a single bad one. I'd prefer if the offense of tendentious editing got bumped up the priority chain: If someone's here on Wikipedia and they're editing tendentiously and refusing to abide by consensus, we can only assume good faith for so long, and then we just need to get rid of them, to keep them from wasting the time of all the other overworked editors who are willing to work in a cooperative manner. --Elonka 23:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been giving that a lot of thought as well, so let me ramble a bit here: Mostly I think it's WP:OWN-related. He takes enormous pride in "his" articles, and sees contributions of others as somehow decreasing their quality. He also takes special pride in his FA articles. During my recent RfA, which he opposed with great venom (even being blocked for it[11]), he tried adding FA stars to his signature to give his voice more weight.

There may be some French nationalism going on. At a couple points in the debate, PHG has dropped comments about how French historians are more likely to know the truth about the Crusades, than historians from other countries.

I also have to wonder if there's simply some run-of-the-mill obsessive thought processes at work. There were times where he was watchdogging the "alliance" article nearly 24/7. I was trying to find times to edit when he was asleep (since he was often reverting me within minutes), but I checked his contribs, and he just plain wasn't sleeping. He was getting so obsessive about reverting me, he even reverted when I tried to archive the talkpage.

I could speculate further as to whether this ties into some sort of Freemasonry connection, or fan worship of Jacques de Molay or the Knights Templar, but that may simply be because that's how I first heard about his activities. My attention was first drawn to this situation in August, when I saw that PHG added a large chunk of (seemingly well-sourced) information to the Templar article, about the Mongols working in concert with the Knights Templar to conquer Jerusalem.[12] At first I accepted it since I was in a hurry and it looked well-sourced (I was traveling at the time), but when I took more time to do fact-checking, I got more and more concerned, as I saw this claim about a "surprise attack" on Jerusalem, and how Jacques de Molay had been "left alone" in Jerusalem to re-fortify the city. It was a major rewriting of history! Then I traced backwards and found the "alliance" article, which was already up for FA (only two weeks after creation).

At the time, I'd never heard of PHG, and neither had any of my contacts. His userpage looked legit, so I assumed that he was just one of those quiet editors who churns out a lot of good work in obscurity. So I at first treated him with great courtesy, but as he's proven completely resistant to nearly every comment I have, things have escalated.

Ever since then, as more and more challenges are coming up about his work, I've gotten the impression that he feels that he's fighting some sort of "retreat" action, trying to defend his pride. When it's pointed out that he's wrong about something, rather than just accepting that he got something wrong and moving on, his brain starts twisting sources into pretzels, to try to prove that he wasn't wrong, he just had an "alternate view." He also seems incapable of admitting that something is even a minority view. His main defense, as you've been seeing, is to claim that all sources need to be given equal weight, even if they're primary sources from hundreds of years ago. He even argues that Templar of Tyre is a "reliable secondary source." :/

As for the "was there an alliance" issue, my own position has been that the mainstream view of historians is that there were "attempts" at an alliance, but that there's a small minority view which argues that an alliance actually occurred. PHG, however, can't even acknowledge that it's a minority view, and wants to give it top placement in the article.

Something else that we may need to be concerned about, is that he's pouring a lot of images into the mix, with very questionable sourcing. For example, this image that PHG recently uploaded is obviously from the cover of Peter Jackson's book Mongols and the West[13] (he even cropped it so as not to include the title and author name, see here for an original), but PHG didn't bother listing the source when he uploaded the image. And he's been uploading a lot of images. It appears that he's picking up history books, and then just working his way straight through the book, scanning in every historical image, without saying where he got it.  :/ The legality of this is ambiguous. In some countries, it's legal to make copies of public domain art. In others, such as the UK, it's not.[14]

Getting back to the alliance article though, I've been wracking my brain to try and come up with a way to find a peaceful solution. But what I keep coming back to, is that PHG is just going to have to start acknowledging talkpage consensus, and if not, he's going to have to be removed from the article by force.  :/

Have you had an opportunity to review the " Introduction sentence" thread? I'd like to get the intro sentence of the article squared away, but every time I try to change it (even though we have consensus for wording at talk), PHG just reverts me. If you agree with the wording though, then we might be able to use that one sentence as a clear sample case for "talkpage consensus must be respected." Then if we can get the lead of the article resolved, changes to the rest might be easier.

We may also wish to continue this discussion on PHG's talkpage, to try and emphasize the seriousness of the situation? --Elonka 08:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, I just wanted to say that I am still willing to help out here as much as I can. It probably won't be much...this week was probably the last time I'll have random free moments for awhile. But I do think that what PHG is doing is very damaging...it's unfortunate, because if he was a student it would be easy to point him in the right directions. I'm not sure what to do with him here though. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:DR, we should try messages on his talkpage. I've already done this (multiple times). Perhaps if you attempted as well, to make it clear that his behavior is not acceptable? Talkpage messages can have considerable weight. --Elonka 05:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear all. Happy holidays! For a short summary of my opinions on the matter: PHG (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

File:Tenzin Gyatzo foto 1.jpg

I've been in a rather intense relationship with User:Elonka for a few months now. Things started back in August 2007 when I began to study the area of the Franco-Mongol alliance, creating the article and most of its content. A great subject, which is very much in sync with my general interest for cultural interaction thoughout history. I do like this kind of obscure, but totally fascinating, instances of cultural interaction (see also Indo-Greeks, Boshin War, Hasekura Tsunenaga etc...).

The subject seems to be contentious with some users however, and I soon entered into heated discussions with Elonka whether there was actually an alliance or not and other details. She first tried to have the article renamed, but failed (here). Despite the quantity of authors who specifically described this alliance (here), she kept arguing that the view was "fringe" and did not deserve balanced representation with the alternative view ("only attempts at an alliance"...). She then tried quite violently to discredit me through the Administrator notice board, but again failed (here), thanks to several users who spoke up for me. I responded by pointing out her behaviour (here), without asking for punitive action. Actually her actions in relation to this article generated many of the Opposes in her recent nomination as Admin (here). She still spends a huge amount of time leaving enormous diatribes against me on various Talk Pages and User Pages (A recent example). I even had to file a claim for harassment (here). Besides, I'm glad I'm not the only one: Elonka has a huge history of dubious disputes and litigations with many other contributors as well (an example).

What the heck? I'm here to share knowledge and contribute fascinating, referenced, stuff about ancient history and cultural interaction, and I must say I am not at all interested in Wikipedia politics or lobbying day long against specific users. Best regards to all and Long Live Wikipedia! PHG (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wessex Children

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, DBD 16:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal WikiProject and template standardization

Hi John, I would your input on two discussions I have initiated at WikiProject Biography/Royalty, one on template standardization and one on name of the WikiProject and redirects to it. Thanks in advance! Charles 04:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Karl Marx: Anti-Semite

When you have time, please drop by Karl Marx and review recent edits by TelAviv (and Vision Quest to a much lesser extent). I have added content to restore NPOV but more work is needed. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

New Chronology (Fomenko)

John,

I'm relatively new to this article, but I'm getting the sense that something very wrong is going on there. The idea of presenting a description of this fallacious view of history, with appropriate rebuttals, seems to be a valid encyclopedic activity -- it serves as a warning to those who might be taken in by it. Unfortunately, as you are better aware than I, there are advocates of the New Chronology who are trying to sell it as the truth. And sell it may be the correct term, as the Russian Astronomer, Michael Gorodetsky, recently (6 Dec 2007) said on the History of Astronomy Discussion List (HASTRO-L):

Fomenko is a respectful scientist in mathematics, though not unequivocally (see the devastating review of one of his books by Almgren). Moreover he is a member of the Russian academy of Science. But in history he is definitely a pseudo-scientist with all characteristic features of pseudoscientific activity. And his activity in history was claimed pseudoscience by the same academy. Just as an example - he with his coauthor has published in Russia more than 60(!) books for wide audience on New Chronology. Today it is even not pseudoscience but commercial enterprise. It looks he decided now to earn in wider American market.

Gorodetsky's comments made me sensitive to the spam-like qualities of the article, with links to advertising sites and a large image of Fomenko's books (since removed).

The main advocates of the New Chronology appear to be closely related to each other and to the publisher. They are:

• Poggio bracciolini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Poggio Bracciolini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Franck Ver Stut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• and anonymous editor(s) who edit from NW France using a block of randomly assigned Wanadoo addresses in the range 81.xxx.xxx.xxx to 86.xxx.xxx.xxx). Sometimes addresses in this range have signed their postings Poggio[15] or Franck Ver Stut[16], suggesting a close relationship among the Poggios, Franck Ver Stut, and the anonymous editors).

Here's my take on what the advocates of Fomenko's New Chronology have been doing:

• Poggio Bracciolini has added links to advertising videos (described below) to the list of links in this article[17] and in the related article Anatoly Fomenko.[18]

• Various advocates of the New Chronology have engaged in extensive defenses of the ideas of the New Chronology and attacks on its critics, peppered with occasional sarcastic comments on other editors.[19]

• In the past, Franck Ver Stut had developed a fork known as New chronology fomenko, apparently with the intention of providing a space for advocacy of the ideas of the New Chronology.

What we are seeing on Wikipedia may be related to the wider use of the internet to advertise Fomenko's books. On YouTube a French user named mithec has posted over 100 short videos that are ads linking Fomenko's new chronology to a wide range of searchable topics, and providing price, web address, and toll free telephone number. A few of them have French titles despite their English language narration. These appear to be connected to the publisher since the name Mithec also appears in the web address of the publisher on the copyright page of History: Fiction or Science?, http://history.mithec.com; Mithec Distribution Services is the name of the US distributor; and Mithec is listed on Amazon.de as the publisher.

If the French editor(s) on Wikipedia are closely related to the French Mithec on YouTube, we have an unacceptable conflict of interest that needs to be monitored carefully. Since Poggio seems to be away for the holidays, any advice on how best to proceed on his return would be welcome. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

John,

Thanks for the suggestion. I'd already removed the linkspam and posted the appropriate warning message on Poggio Bracciolini's talk page. I plan to wait until after the New Year to see how they react. If things run smoothly, fine; if things turn nasty, I'm thinking of turning to some more formal route (arbitratrion or WP:AN/I). If you have time, I'd like to run a draft past you to draw on your experience before I submit it. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)

Since you've been involved in editing Scottish articles in the past, would you be interested in contributing here. Michael Sanders 15:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You may find something rather unexpected if you take a look over on Encarta:

• Constantine II (of Scotland) but "Custantín mac Áeda" in the text
• Indulf but "Illulb [mac Custantín]" in the text
• Constantine I (of Scotland) but "Custantín mac Cinaeda" in the text
• Donald II but "Domnall mac Custantín" in the text
• Kenneth III but "Cinaed mac Duib" in the text
• Constantine III but "Custantín mac Cuilén" in the text

Not every Encarta article confirms with this style, but I'm quite convinced that it's not so long since none of them did. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Move of Scottish kings

There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. Probably won't be successful, but that's wiki for you. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

John, a move vote has been made on Hugh FitzKenneth of the Scots and the Picts. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You are mentioned in a post on the WP:ANI board. You may wish to comment

Greetings John Kenney. Nothing to be alarmed about. Please see this. Since you may have some inside knowledge of user:Future Perfect at Sunrise's block of user:Britlawyer you may wish to comment on this. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name

An RFC on content you have commented on has opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Origins of World War I (now Causes of World War I again)

I moved it back because there is a board game called Origins of World War II which would really muddle things. I recently branched out to Origins of the Franco-Prussian War, and noticed it right away.

John Keegan, Martin Gilbert, and Gordon A. Craig all use Causes, and so I didn't think it would be a problem if you saw what we'd be up against changing to Origins. Thanks! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 05:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am just upset that the article is not in a good state the way it is (a mess of unsourced material and red links), and then you change the title and assume it would be accepted based upon the word chosen by a couple of authors who wrote a specific book, as if their selection is the best one because they created it first and others used it.

I'm trying my best to improve these articles and use the best possible sources- I would think that it would be the single most important thing to do before concerning ourselves with titles. I would hate for a teenager to read something totally off-base and incorrect on here and take it as gospel rather than think 'Causes' is better than 'Origins'. Do you understand my frustration? Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I never would have gotten involved had I looked to see how other "Causes of" articles are formatted- right now, I'm trying to improve both Franco-Prussian War and the new Causes of the Franco-Prussian War (a branch article suggested to me by the head of the Military Wikiproject) to an FA status. I wish I had time to improve every single one, but I don't. All I wanted was more help on improving articles, and I haven't commented further on the title because like I said it isn't worth fighting for. Have you ever had a bad week? This week has been particularly brutal- maybe that is why everything seems so complicated and frustrating to me. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

18:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanders and the Proto Holy Roman Emperors

John, a similar message I sent to Srnec. I noticed Sanders moved (without any discussion I can see) a bunch of the pre-Holy Roman Empire neo-Roman emperors. E.g. Lambert II of Spoleto is now Lambert, Holy Roman Emperor, &c. I think this is ridiculously unnecessary, and I would normally just move them back, but am I gonna be the only one objecting to these new names? I don't wanna waste any more of my time on that kind of thing. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XX - January 2008

The January 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 13:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Interregnum

Dear John, I have run into another conflict with Michaelsanders. Could you please comment on the situation. The dispute is about the following:

• should the German Kings William of Holland, Richard of Cornwall, Alfonso of Castile should be treated as all Kings in succession boxes or should they have special "title in pretence" boxes? (The "pretence" seems somewhat fitting only in the case of Alfonso, but even he has a place among German Kings IMHO.)
• in these succession box, should the factual succession of Conrad IV - William of Holland - Richard of Cornwall (opposed by Alfonso) - Rudolph be maintained or should Conrad IV be followed "vacant and eventually Rudolph"?
• Also, should Alfonso (retire 1275, died 1282) be followed by Albert I because Albert was (for a short while) the next anti-king?

Contrary to what Sanders claims, this is not about writing the Interegnum out of history but about retaining the actually existing sucession. William was unopposed as German King for two years, 1254-56 and was de facto succesor to Conrad IV - not Rudolph twenty years later. Rudolph himself was elected in succession to Richard. Richard is clearly labelled German King by the Lexikon des Mittelalters, so Sanders' claims that historians never call these rulers proper Kings is clearly mistaken.

On a lesser, less urgent field:

• Should there be separate succession boxes for Consorts of the Spanish Netherlands, when the women in question were actually Consorts of the Spanish Kingdom and only as such Consorts of the Netherlands.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Could you also try to break it down to Mr Sanders. To me he doesn't listen on that topic.

I totally agree with you on Alfonso - he is the one case where I would consider using the prentense box though not to the effect that he had no immediate successor. But even in his case I wouldn't cheer for such a move, with the others it is absolutely out of the question.

I have never heard that Alexander crowned Richard and think it very unlikely. However, I will look this up when I find the time. (The Catholic Encyclopedia only says that he supported Richard [20], Bautz says no more [21].

Yes, the box for William is tricky ... but I am sure I will find a way out. Actually, I think the current version works: his predecessor is "Heinrich Raspe (as anti-king)" but in his title it is mentioned that he was "anti-king against Conrad IV until 1254" ... so both are mentioned.

Good night and thanks again. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Livius Drusus

Hi John. Ages ago, in June 2006, you asked if "Is the second Marcus Livius Drusus the same as the maternal uncle of Cato the Younger whose name there links to this article?"

The short answer is yes, the second MLD was Cato II's uncle. McCullough has much to answer for ;-) --Ossipewsk (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Prince/ss X of Wales

Hiya John, do you have a source for your claim that the style Prince/ss X of Wales wasn't used until Albert Victor? DBD 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

John, you misplaced your reply to DBD on WP:BROY. I have copied it over to his page for you. Charles 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Who puts a wikiproject link in their signature? Very irritating. Thanks Charles. john k (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hiya, hope your holidays went well.  :) FYI, I'm trying to take another run at the Franco-Mongol alliance article. If you have time to participate at talk, it would be much appreciated. Active threads are "Introduction sentence" and "Article title". Thanks, Elonka 01:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, my apologies for nit-picking at the article title. Really, I'm fine on the title "Crusader-Mongol relations".  :) I think I was just quibbling because we were recently discussing the "Who is or isn't a Crusader" at Saint Louis University, and debating finer points such as how much action someone needed to take before they could be considered a Crusader, and this overflowed into things like whether or not Armenian and Georgian combatants were Crusaders or not. For example, we've already established that Armenians aren't Franks, though there were definite Frankish elements there. But again, it's just a very minor quibble, please don't let it derail the larger discussion. :) If you want, I'll retract my statement. --Elonka 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

75.84.230.67

It seems to me that 75.84.230.67 needs to talk to someone in the real world about what he is feeling. I would suggest limiting our responses when he provokes us. Is there anyway to get him some help?Werchovsky (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If he is need, it would be unkind to keep arguing with him, but, I'll rely on your judgment then.Werchovsky (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I got your message. I have been trying to respond briefly and courteously recently, but that does not seem to work. Neither does hitting him over the head. I think we ought to try ignoring him except in regard to specific edits or plans to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werchovsky (talk • contribs) 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered sending this poor unfortunate soul to some sort of 'analysis'. Maybe you could suggest your doctor?75.84.227.196 (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)edwardlovette75.84.227.196 (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 6

File:LOVE Park fountain.jpg

You're invited to the
Sixth Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
January 2008
Time: January 26th, 5:00 PM
Location: The Marathon Grill, 10th and Walnut

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

You have received this message because you are on the invite list, you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bill Clinton

Please note, this is considered a personal attack. I suggest you read WP:TROLL, because it is not acceptable to call users trolls that are trying to make good faith edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you have anything better to do than criticizing me for calling someone a troll because they want to insert allegations that Bill Clinton supports scientology into his article? He is a troll. A trolling troll of a troll. Troll troll troll. Maybe he contributes usefully on other subjects, but he's trolling there. I suppose I will leave open the possibility that he is a crank, rather than a troll, if you'd like. john k (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. I presumed a fellow administrator would know a better way to solve a content dispute, but obviously not. discuss edits in an amicable manner, the way you have done it it not how we go about these things. I'm shocked that you continue the attacks here. Please be aware that I will block you should you continue this behaviour. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, making threats to people for disagreeing with you is unproductive. John did the right thing, per the essay you linked to. When someone is trolling, the best advice you can give is "don't feed the troll". Of course, I think calling Farenheit451 a troll is overly generous - he's engaging in personal attacks and editing in a disruptive manner. He deserves a block. If anything, your threat of a block is the problem behaviour here - it's not at all civil, and it's a threat to abuse the privileges that the community has extended to you. Threats and bullying are never acceptable. Please refrain from doing so in the future. You should know better. Guettarda (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

John Kenney can't seem to learn about not making personal attacks. Here is his most recent:[22]--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A request

Hi John. I would be pleased to know your thoughts on this RFAR: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance, specifically if you think it should be accepted or not. If you would like to make a statement on that page that would be appreciated, or you may contact me via email or on this page or my talk page. Regards, Paul August ☎ 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 23:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Greece

Dear John, Could you have a view on this and comment? Thanks, Str1977 ^(talk) 21:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in

Voting and commenting at Talk:Casimir_I_of_Poland#Survey_2.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

John, you are correct in wondering what I was talking about. I was thinking it was Casimir 'The Great'. Please accept my apologies. I have amended my comments. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note User:Thatcher is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

King of Babylon

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article King of Babylon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXI - February 2008

The February 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --11:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Louis XIV

Thanks for bringing a neutral opinion to this fiasco. As you can see, the situation is yet unresolved. What is the next step I should take? I've managed to stay away from this sort of thing in the past, so my knowledge of dispute resoultion is slight. Coemgenus 16:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, John, for your input so far. Please, weigh in on this continued attempt by a user (Frania Wisniewska) acting in bad faith and her ally (Coemgenus) to aggressively push their POV and to wipe out or minimize in a footnote my POV. As much as I tried to seek consensus with these two users by NPOV-izing the article (here, here, and here), including all significant viewpoints (evidently, without the OR pushed by Frania Wisniewska), they will not settle until they manage to relegate my POV to a footnote. Consesus seeking is simply impossible with somebody acting in bad faith. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to make you aware that Frania W. has employed similar dirty tactics (i.e. lies about me - Petit souri - and my work) on the French Wikipedia also, to have my dissenting POV's deleted and my account banned. For more on this, please, see this message. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

John, I would really appreciate your input on the Talk page in the RFC section. Coemgenus is trying to shut down ongoing negotiations for a compromise by repeatedly instituting a Poll, breaching three WP rules (Negotiation, Consensus, and AGF). I don't think, given these violations and his partiality, that he should be the referee on whether or not a Poll is waranted at this stage. Thank you very much in advance! Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for your help in clearing up the Greek heads of state. I looked for the error myself but was blind.

Are you still considering my request? Str1977 ^(talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian patronymics

Hi John;

Thanks for commenting on my naming proposal for Russian grand duchesses! I am wondering want your preferences for patronymics are. At the end of my proposal is a chart of patronymics. If you have any questions, comments, concerns or suggestions, please feel free to mention them on the proposal talk page. I know patronymics is where opinions differ at times in this sort of discussion and I am interested in any and all suggestions as to which ones we should use. I, personally, am most interested in ones which appear "English" in form because I find transliterations closest to the most Russian form have many different spellings. Charles 20:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the patronymics discussion can be extended to grand dukes, which I want to tackle after the grand duchesses. Charles 20:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Bot

I am not the owner of that bot you would need to contact the owner who ever that may be Staffwaterboy© 13:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Bot

I did not use a bot you are the one implaying that i was when i wasn't.The warning was not intended to be nasty that was a template the wikipedia has setup for people to use.I also appologize for the inconvenice Staffwaterboy© 16:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to hear your opinions!

Dear John Kenney !

First, I want to thank you about your contributions, especially Major religious groups (its Talk Page). So now, in Religion in China has had controversies between me and Saimdusan (strong anti-Buddhism and Chinese religions). Please give us your opinions and let people know more about the truth of Asian culture. It's really needed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion_in_China#The_heavy_influence_of_Buddhism_-_Chinese_religions_among_various_East_Asian_civilizations

Thank you so much!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 12:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXII - March 2008

The March 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Two issues

John, would you care to comment on two issues? The first is whether Vladimir Lenin ought to be moved to Lenin, on the grounds that he never called himself Vladimir Lenin (see debate at the article's Talk page). The second is whether de Gaulle and the Free French did or did not claim to be the government of France in 1940 or at any time before 1944. I say they didn't. This is being debated at the article's Talk page. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

This Arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole. PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.

PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 01:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a hello

Dear John,

Just a word to let you know that I'm still around; I'm not editing much, but I do find the time to keep an eye on things : )

Hope you are well, take care,

Josef.

Free French

John as you see Rama maintains his stubborn refusal to allow the references to the Free French being a "government in exile" to be removed. I can't cite chapter and verse on this since my books are in storage while I am preparing to travel, but you know as well as I do that his position is false, and that the article as it stands is ridiculous. Since you are an administrator and I am not, and since I have neither the desire nor the time to engage in a long edit war with Rama, I will have to leave it with you to find a solution to this problem, and to impose it. Regards Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now presented documentary sources on this issue. If I now revert the article to the form in which I re-wrote it, will you support that move and stop me being blocked under 3R if Rama starts a revert war? If you won't do this, I will not make the revert, and the article will stay incorrect. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have returned the article to its corrected version. We will see what happens. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

He has reverted again. Time for you to intervene. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusades task force

Hi John, if you're interested, I've created a Crusades task force as part of the Middle Ages WikiProject. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Montgomery County

Let me invite you to take a look at the article on Montgomery County, MD, specifically the section on the county's government. Also, take a look at the discussion. I found the answers to the question you raised. (A big chunk of the story was left out, and the beginning and the end were telescoped together.) I've made changes, but I'm not familiar with ways of citing information. But I think I've explained clearly in the discussion where I got everything. 71.163.37.245 (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Image source problem with Image:TX28 110.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:TX28 110.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Free French

Are you going to do something about this, as you said you would? If not, I will take the article off my watchlist and it can stay as absurdly wrong as it is, thanks to the stubborn ignorance of one person - a typical Wikipedia outcome. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

New created image by Moshino31

Please leave your opinions here because it's really needed. Keep it or not?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Major_religious_groups#New_world_religion_image

Thank you so much!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WT:NC(NT)#Russian grand duchesses (thorough)

Hi John;

Regarding my proposal at the above linked location, what patronymics do you think are best? There is a chart handy at the page. I am going to bring the grand duchesses up for a move shortly. Charles 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, here is the chart for convenience:

Click to view chart

Name	Suggested patronymic(s)	Patronymics in use
Alexander	Alexandrovna	Alexandrovna
Alexis	Alexeievna	Alexeievna, Alekseyevna
Constantine	Constantinovna	Konstantinovna
Cyril	Cyrillovna	Kirillovna
George	Georgievna	Georgievna
Joseph	Iosifovna	Iosifovna
Leopold	Leopoldovna	Leopoldovna
Maurice	Mavrikievna	Mavrikievna
Michael	Michaelovna, Mikhailovna	Mikhailovna
Nicholas	Nicholaevna	Nicholaievna, Nikolaevna, Nikolaievna
Paul	Pavlovna	Pavlovna
Peter	Petrovna	Petrovna
Theodore	Feodorovna	Feodorovna, Fyodorovna
Vladimir	Vladimirovna	Vladimirovna

I am eager to hear your opinion. Charles 21:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any opinions on Constantinova/Konstantinova? I aimed for forms I thought to be as "English" as possible to avoid issues of which transliterated Russian forms to use. After I hear back from you I will make the changes you suggested and then just ask for your vote in agreement so it all goes without a hitch. Thanks! Charles 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Last question before I create the survey, what about Cyrillovna/Kirillovna? Sorry to have left that one out, but thanks again! Charles 21:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The survey is up! WT:NC(NT)#Survey 2. Charles 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A friendly reminder

		Edit summary reminder
		Hello. I noticed that your edit to Thomas Jefferson did not include an edit summary. Please remember to use one for every edit, even minor ones. You can enable the wiki software to prompt you for one before making an edit by setting your user preferences (under Editing) to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Thanks, -MBK004 22:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Free French

Your ongoing involvement in this dispute is needed. I have again reverted, but that is the last time I will do so. Unless someone (such as you) intervenes to overrule Rama, I will abandon this article to its fate. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention, which is what I was asking you to do and keep on doing. I have never yet seen mediation or arbitration work at Wikipedia on matters of fact, as opposed to matters of conduct. What is needed is for more well-informed people to weigh in and out-argue Rama and Med, and then regularly to revert them until they desist (or, if they don't desist, until they are blocked or the article is protected from them). In my experience that is the only way to win disputes against stubborn fools of this kind. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Prince George William of Wales

I've responded to your age-old query at Talk:Prince George William of Wales. I think this may become an issue to bring to the whole WikiProject... DBD 14:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!

File:City hall and clothespin.JPG

You're invited to the
Sixth Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
April 5, 2008
Time: 5:00 PM
Location: The Marathon Grill, 10th and Walnut

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Prince/ss X of Wales" Issue

Hiya John — just thought I'd let you know that I've moved our discussion to the WikiProject, and am inviting all of the members DBD 13:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism or not?

I've left a warning message to Herunar but he deleted it and...[23].

Please give your opinion. Thank you so much.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since you object, I let this message stay. To John Kenney: This user doesn't seem to know how to edit Wikipedia. He gave me two vandalism warnings for a mistake I made and which I fixed, and spammed 7 users asking for their opinions before I could answer. Disregard this. Thanks a lot. Herunar (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Bangalore "vs "Bengaluru", again

The article on Bangalore has yet again been moved to "Bengaluru". That move was done hastily and in disregard of the long-running controversy about it and past lack of consensus for it. (It has also been made irreversible by ordinary editors.)
If your opinion is still that the article belongs at "Bangalore", please say so on the article's talkpage. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Free French

Your turn to revert, mon brave. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Frontier of Denmark-Norway

Greetings John. I've posted a reply to a question of yours on talk:Denmark-Norway. Best. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIII - April 2008

The April 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Postmaster

Unless our article on United States Postmaster General is mistaken the Postmaster was a cabinet position from 1829 to 1971. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course you're right - my mistake. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Congressman

While "member of congress" is more commonly used... Congressman is not an incorrect way to refer to a member of congress. Your edit summary makes it sound like congressman is incorrect. This is not the case. See Congressman for more details. Now if you had said "Member of congress is more commonly used" that would've been less argumentative. I have left your edit the way it stands on Whitten;s page... just wanted to point that out.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. According to dictionary.com Congressman = a member of a congress, esp. of the U.S. House of Representatives.

P.P.S. I once awarded myself a Barnstar but it was taken away from me (not that I would ever take yours away from you).--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Galliera

Hi; could you please explain me why the descendants of Antoine, Duke of Montpensier, are not considered dynasts of the Line of succession to the French throne (Orléanist)? Is it because the duke married a Spanish Infanta, moving to Spain and becoming a pretender to the Spanish throne? Thank you in advance! --Tonyjeff (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

House of Aragon

I made a proposal on House of Aragon to split the article [24], summarized more concisely on my next comment [25]. I have proposed to the active editors there to agree to it avoid editwarring. As you can see, my position has changed a lot since 2006, and is probably nearer to the one you proposed. Can you weight in on the talk page on wheter it's a an adecuate proposal? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:USCongDistStateIL

Please see (and respond to) question at Template talk:USCongDistStateIL#Major change. Thank you. —Markles 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Planning for the 7th Wikipedia Meetup

The planning for the summer Philadelphia meetup has begun. We would appreciate your input.
You're getting this invitation because you're on Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list. BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIV - May 2008

The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Zein al-Sharaf Talal move

Hello, john k! Could you please give your opinion at Talk:Queen Zein al-Sharaf Talal#Requested move? Thank you Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange ArbCom listing

Hello John, sorry to bother you but I need your advice as an administrator, regarding this posting: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Str1977&diff=219402060&oldid=219401145

I think it quite strange that I and another editor are suddenly implicated into an ArbCom case neither of us had a part and which was on a range of articles (Israeli-Palestianian conflict) that our dispute (Banu Qurayza) has nothing to do with.

Could you please get back to me?

Thanks in advance, Str1977 ^(talk) 21:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXV - June 2008

The June 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveBot (owner) 02:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

University of San Francisco

You added that USF is a Jesuit school. I agree and have outlined an argument for why it should be there. the user Usfcastudent keeps reverting it without providing an explanation or justification. I had added extensive comments for why I think it belongs on the discussion page he refuses to comment there, just continues to revert the article, what should I do. I don't like giving in on a point without discussion, but it is becoming a reversion war.--Mitamarine (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Stanley Matthews

Just a heads up that I responded to a question you posted a few months ago at Talk:Thomas Stanley Matthews. I'd welcome your input on the follow-up questions I've posed there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Pope

Template:Pope has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture Identification

---

Maybe either yourself or somebody you're aware might be able to double check this. If you check this photograph and the description from the LofC, it identifies the two people as Marie and Carol of Romania. Carol was born in 1893 and Marie was born in 1900, but those children do not remotely look like they are seven years apart in age. Just a suggestion, but far more likely candidate for the little girl is Elizabeth, their sister, who was born in 1894. Maybe you might shed some light on the matter. Isis Simone (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Rudolph I of Germany

hi there, you once voiced your opinion on this topic, maybe you could give your views as well? Gryffindor 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Roman Emperor

Template:Roman Emperor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Torah vs. Pentateuch

Please read this archive before continuing down this path. The issue has been discussed to death recently. Mangoe (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Amel-Marduk

Hi, I was just wondering if you know when the Babylonian king invaded Media if he ever did, because sources say he invaded in 560 or 559, and was wounded in the battle, which is the same year Cyrus the Great came to the throne, which is unusual, because he had to do something amazing, because he was not yet 20, but 17. It is usually when they are 20 when they come to the throne, but I think the son of the Babylonian king, as said by Xenophon when invading Media and lost, was because Cyrus was really brave in the battle, as said again by Xenophon. And we know that Amels father was still alive, which would make Amel SON of the Babylonian king. So sorry if this is getting to long, but I think by solving the mystery of who attacked Media, we could know when Cyrus was born, which is another mystery too, because Xenophon says Cyrus was 15 to 16 years of age. So finally, my main question is that WHY do historians consider MOSTLY that it was Amel and not another Babylonian king, becuase other sources say Cyrus may have been born in 600, so they place the invasion in 585 or 584 which would make the king some other one, other than Amel, and that the 585 king was never in a invasion, that would prove it was then Amel. But because I THINK that you might be an expert on the subject, as to which king, either Amel or someone else which the name escapes now, was that invaded Media. And that because I also don't trust the ridiculus dates put by the religous historians of the Torah, though I don't have anything against the religion, and I consider some of their dates important, I think that Amel did not riegn more than two to three years too. So if you can just give a little commenting response to my question I will greatly appreciate it, coming from a proffessor. And by your response, I will hopefully be taken more seriously by other users of Wikipedia, for this battle article which I am to create, Battle of the Median Fort. I thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I will provide the source tommorow, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Though it is considered an romance, it provides allot of historical info in the middle of the book, on Cyrus' tactics, numbers, and in the first part WHEN a the small raid or invasion happened which the Babylonian king caused. So TOMMOROW you will see the sourceS, for now I have to go, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Erech-Uruk

I'd be happy to support a merger. The last time I tried merging this I ran into what I considered to be a religuious zealot who was desperate to separate the archeological/historial Uruk article from the Biblican Erech. In the end I found I didn't have historical source I needed to prove Erech and Uruk are the same place, only the conventional assumption they are, so I left the articles separate. Mdw0 (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling all active WP:NOVELS members

WikiProject Novels Roll Call

WikiProject Novels is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:Novels editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. Also feel free to join any of our task forces and take a look at the project's Job Centre to get involved!

Next month we will begin the coordinator election selection process. We hope to have more involvement and input this time around! More news will be forthcoming. Thanks, everyone! María (habla conmigo) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Newsletter - September 2008

This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Linking dates/years at Stephen Crane

Hi, John Kenney, I wanted to reply in more detail than an edit summary would provide. Per WP:UNLINKDATES, "dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated". This is a relatively new change to the MOS, which is guideline. That "functions provided by these tools nonetheless remain available" is based solely upon an essay, and is neither guideline nor policy. As it stands now, date linking has more disadvantages than advantages, which is why it's depreciated and why most GAs/FAs are being purged of them by bots and users acting alone. Three out of four of my FAs have had all of their autolinked dates removed by Tony1 and his bot (the other one had its autoformatting removed during the FAC process on the urging of other users), so understand that this is a Wikipedia-wide action. On a side note, your recent edit included the linking of lone years, which has never been condoned by the MOS; it's always been depreciated, while the full date formatting is brand spanking new. I hope this helps clear things up. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 12:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the terms. Linking full dates causes autoformatting, and because autoformatting is now depreciated for various reasons that can be read here, linking full dates is also depreciated. Linking single years has always been an MOS no-no, but I can't exactly tell you why; from what I gather it's mainly due to WP:OVERLINK -- see Wikipedia:OVERLINK#Dates especially. I did not say that UNLINKDATES was policy, so I'm not sure what you mean. The MOS is composed of style guidelines, but articles of higher quality (like the Crane article) tend to follow them more closely because of higher standards. I hope this makes sense. María (habla conmigo) 17:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire "overlinking" thing is a mystery to me, as well, so don't feel alone! I have a tendency to underlink, but there's always someone to point out that such-and-such term isn't common enough, so it needs a link, or [[1993]] is no good, but [[1993 in film|1993]] is okay according to revision 9.34 of the MOS, which is supported by 51% of the Wikipedia community, but consensus is that... sigh. As long as the articles I've worked on retain their awesomeness, I won't put up much fight, but sometimes I'm utterly confused. Sorry if I confused you as well. :) María (habla conmigo) 18:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Some important information of an historical nature

Hi, I just thought I would let you know that the only time I have ever laughed out loud while reading something on Wikipedia was when I read this. The article was utterly worthwhile also, and I couldn't believe nobody backed up your point that nowhere else contained the information about the description contained in the 2001 edition of the original article. By the way, I was led to all this by a meandering route that led from the "Incidents" noticeboard, somehow to a Village Pump proposal that discussed the differences between a sphere shaped wiki and a bowl shaped wiki (sphere was considered a good shape; bowl less good — don't ask), underneath of which somebody referenced the greatest ever article on Wikipedia. Thanks. BCST2001 (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Best_article. And the section a few sections up from that, something about effacement and hierarchy, is the one that talks about bowl-shaped wikis. BCST2001 (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A question

Do you know why kings on European continent can bear domestic titles, but British monarch can't ?

For example, Queen of Netherlands is also Baroness of Breda(barony lies within Netherlands), but Queen of UK can't bear any substantive title ?

See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_peer

Siyac (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.234.180 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.198.82 (talk)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - October 2008

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

RCA

Actually, RCA was headquarted in NYC as backed by this URL http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/collection/event.php?id=3457000&lid=1 Camden NJ was headquarters of the Victor Talking Machine Company before RCA bought it in 1929. Camden remained a base for RCA's manufacturing operations for several years, but the HQ remained in NYC. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novel's Collaboration of the Month

The article you nomianted, Novel, has been selected this month. We would appreicate your help in getting it to possible FA status.--Robert Waalk (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of Precedence in England and Wales

Hello, there is an updated debate regarding whether the Phillips and the Armstrong-Jones should be included in the Order of Precedence above the Gloucesters and Kents. Your view would be appreciated. Eddo 17:52 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

User:Bookworm857158367 is suffering from a severe case of WP:OWN - he reverted my edit that Pomerania was not in East Prussia (correct) and my use of "probably" instead of "possibly" given that all the Romanov remains have been found. Paul Austin (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - November 2008

This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Old City boundaries

Regarding your comments, the "Philadelphia Almanac and Citizens' Manual" stated that Old City's boundaries go up to Spring Garden Street, but the Redevelopment Area goes up to Vine. I noted the two separate definitions in the page. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney was never certified and should be deleted, do you have any objection? MBisanz ^talk 16:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Cy Vance

I found the reference you wanted in 2004; check Vance discussion page.Mwinog2777 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

1996 GOP Vice-Presidential Nominee Jack Kemp's home state

Can you prove that Jack Kemp was listed on ballots as "Jack Kemp of Maryland", as you asserted on the '96 POTUS election page?PonileExpress (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comments towards Betacommand

John, your comments [26] directed at Betacommand are inappropriate. Please comment on issues and content, and not the contributor. Whether or not Betacommand is "disingenuous" or whether he has ever argued for retaining an image is not relevant to the discussion. You're an administrator, so I'm sure you're well aware of WP:NPA. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wars of Liberation

Hi, John. This might be up your alley: Why are we calling the Wars of Liberation the War of the Sixth Coalition?

Wesołych Świąt!

Sca (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured list candidate: List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty

Hi, John Kenney!! I saw on this page that you were one of the members of the WikiProject Royalty. The project is very underrepresented among featured lists. I have thus submitted the List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty, on which I worked on, as a featured list candidate. If you would be kind enough to take some of your time and review the list here, I would be extremely grateful. Regards. BomBom (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Time to clean up "List of Kings of Tyre"

Greetings, John, from Chronic2 (talk)

I see that back in 2004 you created List of Kings of Tyre, which was a useful thought. People have been very respectful and have left in place your basic list with its years assigned to the various kings. Someone has pointed out that these years no longer match the years assigned to the various kings that have their separate articles. This was true even before my recent editing that updated regnal years according to the work of Frank Moore Cross and other scholars.

Would you mind looking at that page again, and also at the updated individual articles? As it is, we have your original years, and then below my "Alternative to above list, Hiram to Pygmalion." I would like to consolidate this into one list. As it is, I have been unable to determine where you got those numbers. The dates for Hiram I are only 2 years different from the F. M. Moore dates, which are derived by assuming 825 BC for Dido's flight to found Carthage, but when we get down to Pygmalion (and Dido), you are using the 814 date. Also, there are no textual variants giving 34 years to Baal-Eser II, etc.

I propose that we update your dates, or, if you don't agree to that, that you provide the source from which you got them, which is currently not specified. Then the whole article won't be so confusing to the reader.

Thanks, Chronic2 (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

--Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I have updated the article. Chronic2 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Related arb case

Hiya, we are currently discussing PHG's restrictions on Mongol-related topics, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG. Since you were involved in previous discussions,[27] I wanted to let you know. --Elonka 01:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

Hi John, there has been a lot of recent work on this article and it has changed quite a bit - if you have not, I hope you can take some time to look it over - my main concerns are insufficient historical contextualization, but also please see this discussion thread about the introduction. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but he is going to argue, please keep an eye on it for the next few days. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Hintze.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hintze.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Nevada counties.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nevada counties.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Nevada counties.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nevada counties.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Incivility

John, on 16 December 2008 I cautioned you regarding personal attacks. On 13 January 2009, you twice attacked another editor [28][29]. You're well aware of our civility policy, yet you are blatantly violating it. You've been an administrator for years. You've been on the project for more than six years now. There's no need for this, and I suspect you know it. Please, don't do this again. Please.

The requirements for images have evolved over the years. There's considerably stricter standards now than there were back when you started on the project. This has been necessitated by a flood of inappropriately uploaded images that are highly problematic. We've had to become more direct in our means of handling such cases. Even now, File:Nevada counties.jpg still isn't properly sourced and your removal of the no source tag was inappropriate. Stating the source as "US...government" is entirely insufficient. There's no way to verify the copyright status of this image. The US government is a massive organization with hundreds of offices and departments. Verifying where this image came from and its copyright status is impossible with simply stating the source as "US government".

Please correct the sourcing so we have a means of verifying its copyright status and please avoid using the language you have been using in addressing other users.

Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

advice

John, do you know who among active Wikipedians is a cultural historian or expert on cultural history? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

About Islom Karimov

Hi,

I won’t explain here why I want this page to be renamed "Islom Karimov". I just want to apologize for my long silence.

Wikipedia is a drug, and I want to reduce my consumption. Those last times, when I logged in, I was taken by a great anxiety before I read my watchlist, fearing a new inappropriate change in an article I keep an eye on. Sometimes, new conflicts break out and I see with fear that I'll have to write very long discussions to convince other people that I’m right and that they're wrong — too often in vain. Sometimes, there is nothing new and then I’m disppointed in my boredom.

I must agree that — alas — when long discussions occur, the last result is the desertion of one party, independently of the (un)correctness of his argumentation. So I’ve decided to slow down my participation. I don’t participate anymore in English speaking Wikipedia in general and I strongly reduce my participation in French speaking Wikipedia.

But it’s easier to decide it than to do it. It’s hard to decide to renounce to defend ideas you once fiercly fought for. I fought for the idea of using the exact official name of people, as for Islom Karimov, for Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow, for Emperor Shōwa, for Pope Stephen IX and for a lot of others. I can’t support the idea that the most commonly used name of a person is the best name to use because it’s the most commonly used. If it is the best name, it must be explained why it is, but the great number of people using it is not and can’t be a reason by itself. I’m ready to discuss every particular arguments for or against one form of a name, but I definitively refute the argument of the number. An encyclopedia can’t be based on most widespread ideas, but on established facts.

It’s doubtful I’ll again take part in this discussion on the English Wikipedia, but maybe I will. A new discussion means for me a new slavery: I’d have to keep an eye on it, to answer any argument and to be under stress. I’d prefer to avoid it.

I wish you a happy and healthy new year.

Švitrigaila (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Fall of Eagles

Dear John, since you commented on this article before, may I ask to have a look now. I want to ensure that the proper and correct spelling of Habsburg is used in all non-fiction occurences referring to the Austrian dynasty but I am opposed on this article as well as on Talk:History of Gibraltar. Thanks, Str1977 ^(talk) 21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

File:City hall and clothespin.JPG

You're invited to the
Seventh Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
March 15, 2009
Time: 3:00 PM

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense of Baron Atholstan

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Baron Atholstan, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Baron Atholstan provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Baron Atholstan, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Category:Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (and two related categories), which you created, have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Prince-Bishop

I see you brought up concerns a while ago I have since noticed. I thought I'd alert you to the possible revival of such a discussion. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for help on Eugene O'Neill conflict

As someone who has contributed to the Eugene O'Neill article, perhaps you would be willing to look at the (rather one-sided) discussion on that article's talk page regarding Emerson7's deletion of cited materials, Ah, Wilderness NOT O'Neill's only comedy. I would like to have a Request for Comment process initiated, but must have at least one other editor to have contributed to the discussion before an RfC can be started. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

July Monarchy elections

You must understand the party affiliation was extremely vague. It's almost impossible to have two sets of results that agree with each other for these elections.

I based my info on what was available on Roi-et-President at the time, and at the time they indicated Republicans. I think they changed it since. You must also understand that most of these pages were created quickly and I forgot to come back and check them for errors. --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing HRH Privy Counsellor?

Hi John K. (I've noticed your compilation (Sandbox) Privy Council list.) Ref: The Duke of Gloucester; (Whitakers Almanac PCs: (WA 1947) = 1935: (WA 1951) = 1935: (WA 1972) = 1925?) Do you know why he is not named as a PC in his article, & is missing from all other Wikepedia PC lists etc. Is he missing from the (Wiki) Ref-source for all the other PCs, &/or could you suggest any reasons for the conspicuous exclusion of such a prominent HRH? Regards Steve: Stephen2nd (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

19th c. Edinburgh inquiry

John,

I just joined this community and am impressed with your wisdom & humor. I am writing a historical novel that takes place in Edinburgh during the mid 19th c.

Can you offer any advice or guidance in using language & dialogue appropriate to this time period or am I attempting the impossible ?

Plan B is abondoning this approach and use a more nuetral, less time specific language style. After all my goal is to paint an accurate historical picture of a real place and time but also to entertain and sell a popular book.

Many thanks & my apologies if this request is posted incorrectly. Cheers --ThosStewart (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - March 2009

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
March 15, 2009
Time: 3pm
Location: Drexel University

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.

Are events like a Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia in our future?

In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local Italian restaurant.
This has been an automatic delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for help on Bryant Wood page

From Chronic2 (talk). Greetings John. Can you take a look at the Bryant Wood page and let me know your opinion about what is going on there? PiCo entered some information saying that a 1995 radiocarbon finding discounted Wood's scholarship. When I enter more modern radiocarbon data, he dismisses it as "tendentious", not giving any citations, etc. Thanks for any advice you could give.Chronic2 (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

File:LudwigIVhesse.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:LudwigIVhesse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

First Allied Airborne Army

You know, that's a very good idea, and to be honest I'm not sure of the answer. I'm leaning towards Air Force, but I'll need to do some more investigating. Skinny87 (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Secretaries of State for Education (UK)

Category:Secretaries of State for Education (UK), which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

ww2 casualties

you just deleted 4 million war dead in the Dutch East indies, please be careful when you edit Thanks--Woogie10w (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, your new edits make sense, OK by me. pointer there is a rather nasty row about "India", Pakistanis get upset because they were part of the Indian Empire and dont want to be included with. I could not care one way or other. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I trashed that dumb useless listing by continent and added the Third Reich, accounting 101--Woogie10w (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

John, thanks for pushing me. If you notice anything else, please advise. Regards Barney D--Woogie10w (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Louis-Philippe of France vs Louis-Philippe, King of the French

John K., would you mind going to the discussion page Editing Talk:Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, King of the French (section) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Louis-Philippe_d%27Orl%C3%A9ans,_King_of_the_French#Moving_article & give your opinion? I recently changed the name of the article to Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, King of the French, which I had proposed on 7 September 2008; however, no one reacted until I did it on 4 May, and there is now an argumentation about it. In order to cut the length of the title, I would remove the *d'Orléans*, but keep *King of the French*, as you had proposed in February 2008. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
June 14, 2009
Time: 3pm
Location: Drexel University

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.

Are events like a Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia in our future?

In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

British India or India

The issue has come up again at WW2 casualties, check out the discussion page WW2 casualties Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sophocles GAR notice

Sophocles has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum

The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:

Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.

Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to help guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - Coordinator Election

Hello. To begin, every member of WikiProject Novels will be getting this message (the joy of macros) so if you wish to get in touch with me, please post a message on my talk page. I would encourage anyone who so wishes, to stand in the Coordinator Elections. If you wish to stand, please do so by 23:59pm, June 27. Voting will the continue to 23:59pm, July 21. Can everyone please check-out the Coordinator Elections page. Also, the collaboration of the month is The Tin Drum, so if you have any spare time, please check it out. And I apologise to the seven of you for whom this will be a repeat message. Regards, Alan16 (talk).

Coordinator Election

Hello. The Coordiantor Election has begun. All members are encouraged to vote by the deadline, July 28. To vote simply add support to the comments and questions for.. section of the member of your choice.

3 users are standing:

• Alan16 (talk · contribs)
• Kevinalewis (talk · contribs)
• Pmlinediter (talk · contribs)

Regards, Alan16 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

template name changes

You do realize you broke a ton of redirects with your move of Template:Infobox officeholder, right? You're supposed to fix them when you do things like that. john k (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

look at my contribsRich Farmbrough, 19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

State

Hello! I hope you've been well! I'm very glad to see you're still around ... If you have time, please take a look at the state article. I am worried that the article will never be brought back up to standard, given the objections of some clueless yet opinionated editors. Having taken a break from working on this site for over a year, my Wikipedia diplomatic skills are very rusty... Your expert opinion on that article is very needed. 172 | Talk 01:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Governors of Minnesota

Sorry if this seems to be coming out of left field, but I noticed you made the change last may and put down a reason Gerald Ford's birth name as to why you removed Ventura's legal name. The difference between Gerald Ford and for that matter Bill Clinton and Jesse Ventura is that both Ford and Clinton legally changed their names at some point in their lives. Ventura's legal name and the name by which he took the oath of office as was/is James Janos. Smith03 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The ballot he appeared as JV, but his name on the voting restration was/is JJ and again when he took the oath it was JJ (sorry no source for the oath, just remember watching it) [30] 6th paragraph about his legal name written back in Nov '98. Smith03 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[31] this is from Minnesota Legislative Reference Library (state government) note how they list him. Smith03 (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA

I resent your repeated comments. Whether you are aware of it or not, or like it or not, you are on what is normally known as 172's "buddy list" at his user page, and are one of several members of that list summoned by 172 to support his blatently out of process moves and revert-warring, reversing without prior discussion a proper move discussion from just 3 months ago (Talk:Sovereign_state#Requested_move). He had, and still has, barely bothered to explain or justify these actions on the talk page, leaving it to those he summoned to do so. The abusive tone of 172's summonses clearly breaches WP:CANVAS. Instead of addressing these issues, you have chosen to add to the abuse. "Nasty" indeed. Please stop this behaviour. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, given that you basically accused me of being a crony of 172 whose opinion shouldn't be respected, I don't see where you come off getting on your high horse about personal attacks. As far as personal attacks go, the conversation between 172 and catslash was perfectly civil until you arrived. Virtually your first comment was that you were glad 172 was not an admin. After that, the conversation was civil again until you started accusing 172 of bringing his cronies over. If anyone is violating WP:NPA here, it is you. Certainly any accusations from you of others on that front ought to be dismissed as worthless. As far as WP:CANVAS, I don't think 172's messages had any problem with excessive cross-posting (he only contacted three users), votestacking (he can have had no particular idea whether we would support his position or not, only his own conviction that he was right and that we would see that), or stealth canvassing (he did it openly on our talk pages). It does violate the "campaigning" rule, but that is, I think, the least important of the four. But, sure, 172 ought to have left more neutral messages. As far as WP:MOVE, yes, I agree that 172 violated that, and that ought to be reversed.

Now, perhaps you could be bothered to reply on the actual substantive proposal I made, instead of calling the kettle black about personal attacks? john k (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also "a proper move discussion from three months ago"? Looks to me like an inappropriate decision to move from a partisan. Two signed-in users supported a move, one signed-in user and one anon opposed. That's not a consensus to move by any reasonable standard. john k (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your horse is a good deal higher than mine! Whether you agree with the last move discussion or not you should respect the process. I may comment on a proper move proposal, but won't continue with the discussion at Talk:State, which has degenerated into displays of self-righteousness in support of blatent abuses of policy. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Template: English monarchs

Hiya JK. I'll be gone for 1 hour, as I'll be watching 2 episodes of M*A*S*H. I'll will return though. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Do as you wish, at the templates. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Romanian monarchy

Interesting, had Leopold (not renounced the sucession) outlived his younger brother King Carol I, he might've ascended the throne. A rarity, older brother (and heirs) following younger brother. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And then, there's the father succeeding the son situation of 1930. Intriguing. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Greeting and warning

• Sir, I do not know you, but I am offering here a friendly warning: do not pollute yourself or your good standing by engaging the lunatic aggiebean at Talk: Anna Anderson. My appeal to you in good faith is as a former faithful editor, who was savaged then banned thanks to aggiebean. Please, keep offering good advice, your suggestions were excellent as posted...but do not acknowledge her, do not allow her to bait you as she has obviously been doing...and please report her to either DrKiernan or Gwen Gale. Neither of these admins is worth a damn, but they ought to be alerted to aggie's old tricks. Aggiebean is an arriviste and a brute. Beware that nazi junk-yard dog, John75.21.122.118 (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Re. Charles I of Austria

Hello John. Sorry, you're wrong. The closure of a move proposal does not depend on past move proposals. In fact, if it did it would make the job of having a current discussion and proposal totally pointless. There was almost one year between the proposals, which is perfectly valid, and no opposition to the move. Thus, complete consensus to move. It is assumed that if no opposition dropped by during the time the discussion was open, then it's because there is overall approval. If you do not agree with the current title, you may request a new move following instructions on WP:RM. Regards, Húsönd 09:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mechanical it is, but awfully it would be far more if one had to focus on previous move requests upon closing a current one. Little interest in a move proposal such as this is an indication that opposition, if any, is sporadic. Users with interest in a specific article will watchlist it, and for this one not even the watchlisters seemed to drop by to raise any opposition. You're dissatisfied with the outcome and thus dissatisfied with the process, but it's actually the only practical way of doing it. Try closing move proposals and you will soon realize that the closing admin can only focus on a discussion happening now, not the ones gone by. Not feasible otherwise, at all. Regards, Húsönd 18:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson & aggiebean

• Bully for you, and give it to aggiebean again but good! About time someone else besides me called her out for her lies and tar-feather tactics. Only one further tiny bit of warning: don't underestimate her power with admins here. She's got about 5 of them on my tail. I'm only safe and posting because A)I'm the Revolution; B)I'm an unparalleled genius.76.195.92.44 (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Hi John, I see aggiebean has pulled the old "I've-been-here-all-these-years" routine on you. Don't let that uneducated hillbilly scare you off; you have good ideas, and all those challengers she had kicked off the talk page is exactly what has held up progress for 3 years. You are more than welcome for the latest pep talk.75.21.103.13 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be fooled, this troll has been harassing all of us on AA and other pages for months and has been banned and blocked many times. He is a huge problem and has trolled all our talk pages and stuffed the main talk page with his outrageous accusations and extreme behavior. Naturally he jumps at the chance to go around to all talk pages trying to trash me behind my back, but please know that no matter what you think of me, this guy is much, much worse. BTW too he is one of the originators of the delete everything/go to short article idea so don't think he's on your side just because he doesn't like me.

John, honestly you need to look at the history of the article. It was long, and it included a lot of info, but we had to do away with it because of all the problems. Here is just one example: when we added the quote from Olga A. in the Vorres book saying AA didn't know who she was and asked the nurse 'is that the aunt' and we put a reference to the page number, Chat comes in in the middle of the sentence and adds that AA allegedly said 'of course I know who she is that's papa's sister' and then leaves it to appear as part of our sourced quote, yet it's his own POV vandalism. Most of what Chat puts as 'facts' are now completely discredited by the fact that AA turned out not to be Anastasia, yet he continues to add this info as if it were fact. We take it out, he adds it back, edit wars go on for weeks until someone locks the article. The problem here is that AA supporters refuse to accept that she wasn't Anastasia and do everything they can to make it look like everything went her way but the DNA tests, meaning to cast doubt on those tests, not in so many words but in message. However, everything DID NOT go her way and most of what they add were never true to begin with and we can now prove it. We need an accurate, fact based article for the information of those who come here looking for the true story, we do not need to appease a few brokenhearted AA supporters who can't let it go. We owe them nothing since their side is proven false. It is impossible to get into the details of the story w/o all these things hitting brick walls of disagreement and even if you leave it alone check back later and see that AA supporter has changed it again. This NEVER ENDED- I'm telling you for nearly 3 years- until finally the mods had to do away with it all and go to the brief details. As was stated before, we can't have a 'bio' of her because most of her life was based on impersonating a dead person and you cannot tell her 'side' without giving credence to her claims. Go ahead, look back at the old edits and the wars and see for yourself. Also see the archived talk pages. And if you want to see what I'd put in a long article check out my website, Anna Anderson Exposed. However, this cannot be done here.Aggiebean (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you still don't believe me, you have still not read the history. The proof is all there. This is why the page was turned over to the admin page and why we are now under the control of mods. ALL of us are subjected to this due to the past problems, but it is the only way. You so innocently suggest 'add this AND this' but you fail to realize two things: one, that the 'this is papa's sister CANNOT be true, so therefore it was a lie by supporters, and should not be included in the article, and second, the 'add this AND this' is what got to be called 'tit for tat quote matching' that made the article so long- I mean it was longer at one point than articles about presidents, world figures like Napoleon, and even Jesus Christ- and also very confusing to readers as 'too many cooks spoiled the stew' each with their own writing style, attitude and POV. THIS is why we have come to strict moderation and consensus and keeping it brief. Three years (two of which I was not even here, so don't blame me) have proven the article cannot be worked out sensibly due to the attitudes and personalities involved. (IMO CHATNOIR is the biggest problem because he refuses to accept the reality that AA wasn't Anastasia and still tries to insert that POV into everything. If we could get rid of him, or at least change his mind, we could do it, but apparently we can't.)11:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And heeeere's aggiebean

There, John! Sooner or later, she couldn't resist! Here she is in all her paranoid schizo glory! You know why she pushes people to read the whole history of that talk page? Because she knows no one ever will!! Ignore her if you can, and stick to your guns man. Someone has to be a voice of balance over there, since that idiot Kiernan is letting her call the shots all over again, just the way she wanted it.76.195.92.123 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The way Anna Anderson is supposed to pan out...

OK, my man, I'll give you a low-down and hope you pay heed.

• The article is being built, slowly, by some alleged "consensus", based on the template proposed by me and Kiernan.
• One section at a time is being laid down like foundation-work. It is being done through 'limited' agreement (since you're not too welcome to input there).
• Once the entry looks structurally sound, bits and pieces may be added--again through this phony consensus--to flesh it out realistically.
• Did I mention that most of these were originally my ideas?

Now, you are right, aggiebean (who somehow bought her way into being the foreman at that page) will NEVER allow a hint of anything directly relating to Princess Anastasia. She thinks 'if we say it, Anderson supporters will come'. So don't expect her to give you 1mm leeway in any direction but mine--OOPS, I mean "hers".75.21.149.8 (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, are you implying that you are aggiebean? Because that would be...puzzling. john k (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that's the famous troll, not me. See how he says "Princess Anastasia" that proves he's an AA supporter. Why else would he torment finneganw and I so much and defend anyone who seems to take her side? He has been a big problem on other pages too and has been blocked many times.

John, I do hope you are not falling for the fallacy that GD Ernst was 'out to get her' because she 'revealed' the 'trip to Russia' story. Ever consider he was just upset someone was trying to profit from his murdered niece's tragic demise? How would you feel if it were your family member? Did you know that it was no 'bombshell' as AA supporters like to claim? There were actually two books out in the early 20's alleging the trip took place, including one in German only called "In the Face of the Revolution" from 1922. An online friend of mine owns a copy. Clearly, just like with so much else, Rathlef got ahold of this book, which was obscure and not a big seller, and used it to try to help AA 'amaze' people with 'inside info.' AA did not mention this story until 1925, three years after the book was out there. It is totally the invention of AA supporters that Ernie wanted to 'discredit' her for 'exposing' him. If you look at the history and the sources, especially Kurth's book which is heavily based on Rathlef's notes, you will see that most of the obviously faked (now that we know the truth) info can be traced to Rathlef. She had plenty of info there to help AA learn, and used it in the guise of 'helping her remember.' She even said 'if you are right, I will tell you'- how would she know if she didn't have the info in front of her? Re-read Kurth's chapter "Shadows of the Past" and you will see how hokey and invented it all was! We can't allow this shameless fiction to be given any value or consideration by anyone!Aggiebean (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just look at it

• John, I know who you are and respect what I have read about you. You have all the answers you need by reading Ms. Crazy's post above, and looking more closely into what finneganw and she are doing now. Up to their old tricks. I sure as hell hope I did NOT give you the impression that I am aggiebean!!

• I do not know aggiebean, I do not "hate" anyone. I hate what people do, what they represent. aggiebean is a mannerless, loudmouthed fascist when it comes to this subject, as you can easily see. Since she is finally receiving a modicum of discipline in this matter, she's now acting the saint. Don't you fall for it. This is a user who says she "knows" the Romanov Family. She says she has been an expert of Anna Anderson's case for 30 years. And she says anyone who disagrees with her notions is an AA supporter. Apparently, she's too dimwitted to understand that "Princess" is a title applicable to Anastasia--but you see, since I use "Princess" as an appropriate honorary, well!! That must mean I am an AA supporter.

• Take this fool at face value, John. Same goes for me, but I am transparent. aggiebean is the worst of the worst...she's worse than a ghost.75.21.107.92 (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Troll-What it means is you think AA was Anastasia and a princess. AA wasn't Anastasia and Anastasia wasn't a princess, she was a Grand Duchess. In Russia, princess was a lower title than Grand Duchess. In England, Princess would be higher than duchess. I do not know the Romanov family and have never claimed to. I have been interested in the Romanovs and AA saga for over 30 years, but I only consider myself an AA expert the last two years. To John-This guy's trolling spam and hatred of me and finneganw has polluted many a page. He also loves starting new categories for each rant to draw attention to himself. The only way to be rid of it is to get your page protected against anonymous users. If I were you I'd delete all his garbage as well as my responses for cluttering the page. My opinions on the article remain the same.Aggiebean (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Worse-Than-Troll: don't you mess John's page with your schizoid rants, and don't you DARE tell me what "I think". You are a peasant, ignorant and a liar. ChatNoir was right about you 100%, even if he is a pro-AA kook. You said you knew the Romanovs! A search through the archive will find that post; no wonder you want John here to delete the posts and protect the page! Also, Anastasia wasn't English in case you hadn't noticed and in Rusiia they'd have had no problem referring to her as "Princess". You truly are an idiot. John, she doesn't like being called out. No matter what happens to those of us in the Resistance, don't let this pig-farmer push you about--she's a liar and manipulator. If you wish it, I will post here NO MORE. For God's sake, don't get sucked into her fascist world of aggie-only "facts"!75.21.108.45 (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is very tedious from both of you. Please stop carrying out arguments with each other on my talk page. john k (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Stopped as of now as far as I'm concerned. She's not worth a response and I apologize for all this. Now, I also know you do not need the support of someone like me. You are in a better place than that. Abientot!75.21.97.99 (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC) John, let me hop back in here and say a few things: 1. That article, while we may not care much about it at this stage, is vital to American historical record. 2. What you have posted about it is very good work so far. 3. Anna Anderson's fraud was brilliant, almost the kind of thing Harry Houdini tried to expose in his career--don't you think it's worth keeping up the fight about listing correct historic facts about that fraud? I know you do think so, but will you fight for it?75.21.104.101 (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, troll, princess is the incorrect title for a Russian Grand Duchess. Troll, I also want to know if you are so in favor of a short article as you claimed why are you attacking me, who wants that, and backing this guy, who's against it? See you give yourself away. You only back those who will have pro AA things in the article because that's what you want. This is why you like him and bookworm and hate me and finneganw.

John, if you want to get rid of him, please protect your page from anonymous users. No one up to any good will refuse to register for an account. I promise not to return unless I have something important to say to you personally. I have nothing else to say to the troll, anywhere.Aggiebean (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson, ahem

• Now to get away from Planet Zog...I think your most recent post at the talk page is perfection. You argue what certain others hate: telling an unbiased truth in an encyclopedic entry. The truth about this woman is that she was a fraud, succeeded in most ways, conned many people--but people did believe in her. There is a history of conspiracy theory as you know, regarding both PRINCESS Anastasia and the entire Imperial Family. You also may have an inkling that Anna Anderson meant something to people! We do not believe she was Anastasia. But John, my papa, born in 1911, and mama born in 1917, in their time, KNEW Anastasia was alive and well. They believed that, they felt they KNEW. Ever so many people felt that. And I have asked certain others there at the page, Can we ignore that simply because we don't like it? Or because AA was a fraud? I tell you, some encyclopedia this is. Why not keep going, John. My respect is with you, you have the mind of a scholar and historian! Let's see if the user threatening to leave actually will do. THEN you'll have an article to conjure with!...an article that tells of this amazing fraud! Truth is not so damned hard, as some would have you believe. Godspeed, John. Don't turn into another of these zombie admins here, you are too good for that.

• John, I've leapt back in because I want you to see something. This is aggiebean's post at Finneganw's talk page, and don't think the other admins ignore her! QUOTE:

I refuse to have any more to do with the article if they are going to give equal value to the AA side and go back to a long article allowing Chat imput. That was a long miserable headache that was finally locked and it will happen again. I am too stressed in real life to go through that again. I can't understand why no one believes us, we were the ones who were there and suffered with it long before it was taken to the mod page. The situation is hopeless because of the AA supporters. Since their side is completely disproven, I don't know why their POV has to be represented or appeased.Aggiebean (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to help. Aggiebean (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am now convinced this JohnK was sent by Kurth/Chat to plead his case in a more civilized way than he ever could. Note that Chat has disappeared since this person appeared. The goal of Chat is to get a longer article so he can insert his pro AA stuff that we can't fight because we don't have sources directly stating the obvious, that she was coached and that her memories never happened. Just as Penny got Tsarfan and Simon to fight her battles because she couldn't do it without getting upset and looking like a crazy fool, that is what Johnk is doing for Chat/Kurth. I'm tired of it.Aggiebean (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

CLOSE QUOTE--see that John? Now YOU are ChatNoir/Peter Kurth...a sock puppet accusation at least, I hate to think what it is at most. I wanted you to see who was doing what around here. This user has been told exaclt ywho you are, and look at the result. I wanted you to see this because this is exaclty the kind of tactics that drove me mad!

For the record, I do not think John is him, but I do believe he was sent at the urgence of someone.Aggiebean (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Ah, see that? You were sent "at the urgence of someone" [emphasis mine]...is this the type of grammar you guys want to see at the Anna entry?

For the record, the difference between Grand Duchess and Princess: In 1886, Alexander III changed the law, limiting the grand ducal title to the child or grandchild of a reigning emperor, past or present. Those less direct descendants who were more distantly related were given the lesser title of Prince or Princess of the Blood. All daughters of the Tsar were Grand Duchesses only. A princess would be a female great grandchild of a past Tsar, more distant cousin, etc. Princess is the incorrect title for Anastasia Nikolaievna. Aggiebean (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• OK, John, back to some basic and necessary reality: 1)I told you this harpie wouldn't ever leave the page; 2) I can't believe I'm agreeing with the pitbull Nishkid, the one who keeps trying to roast me alive...we have the same goal;3)Stick to your guns! The article can consist only straightforward truth...but you are indulging in arguments about sources that have no place there. You are playing into the traps laid by certain users! STICK TO THE GUIDELINES KIERNAN LAID DOWN: agree on the skeleton of the entry, then flesh it out...gosh, why is that so hard to understand? There is no need to sway this article in favor of Anderson/Schanzkowska anymore than to sway it against her as a human being. She was a crazy fraud, science has just now proved conclusively she was a fraud. We have to balance that with something, but not what you seem to be proposing. Other users are too flamboyant about how they want 'their' article to look; in the end, it must BE truthful and cited well--no matter how it looks.

• • John, would you please be a little more of an enforcer on your own page and demand that aggiebean RESPECT your requests? I'm commenting to you with absolutely no regard for aggiebean. I will not disregard your demand that there be no 3rd party scrapping here. And please ask her to STOP VANDALIZING my posts here, unless you have the same problem she does with consistency. She has been accused of vandalizing posts before. And no, I will not bloody sign anything at this essentially nazi website.

For a moment I meditated and I think this is some grand truth in a homespun dress for Anna's entry:

1) Proceed with structure/content as proposed by Kiernan.... 2) At most, there are TWO "editors" at the Anna talk page. They are as fanatic as one can get, and think because the truth is their exclusive property, they can post whatever they wish. Seek reasonable consensus from them; otherwise exclude them for disruptive editing. DISCIPLINE them, as I was deservedly disciplined whenever I got out of line! Have I ever in any place denied that I am the Resistance here? 3) John, you need to be cautious about using citations and especially this contentious garbage about I, Anastasia. There is an excellent book, forgive me I have no link, but it's about the crazy world in the "court" of Anna Anderson--looks fairly new. An excellent citation to consider...no cover-ups about AA's fraud, and some rather intriguing stuff. 4) I follow your general vibe about Anna's biography, and how the world saw her, etc. Even Massie acknowledges her, though he calls her "pathetic" (vid. Nicholas and Alexandra). Here again, great care must be taken to perhaps create a special section explaining why people helped/believed in her.

Forgive me, it's just that as a forced-out observer, I see these above as the main trouble. Get past the "two" and their incessant screeching, and you'll be in editing heaven indeed! Ah, yes, sorry to make this even longer, but I think the alleged time-well-spent on the article in the past--by certain users--ought to be thrown out the window. Work in the here and now, as so many admins have stated should be done. I think whatever Trusilver said months ago can be canned-as-corn from now onward. Or does Trusilver still have some say in the process??

• John, I admire your sand and tenacity, because of your excellent points along with Kiernan's arguments at Anna's page. However, you are both actually doing very little good at present--replying to users who use 1,000 words needlessly, for one thing. But it is good progress; good to argue it out properly albeit briefly. One other thing: it is an excellent idea to put a section into the entry stipulating damage done by AA's fraud, that strikes me as very fair and balanced. And truly, I really think I, Anastasia ought to be left alone. What good does that do in the entry? A fraudulent book written about a known fraud? And you people are discussing its merits? It doesn't even speak to the actual subject and does NOT belong there. You will note how certain users, in the past, demonized Kurth's work and would have none of it.75.21.145.152 (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

See what you've got me into

Lord, I'm using IPs to sign my posts. You're a good influence on people, John. I mean that. NOW: I think I see the true, core problem of the Anderson entry. It cannot be achieved by consensus alone: she was very, very well supported throughout her life. She was believed, and believed by MANY. She even drew in a young man in the late 1970s who ultimately wrote THE book on her biographically, though it is a dubious book. So the thing about this entry is simple; how does one biograph a fraud who really lived no known life of "her own"? It's never been done, and that in itself is some proof to her tenacity as a pop icon. Why not treat the fraud as a fraud, no leeway, but acknowledge her status as a pop icon? This gives no possible quarter to "Andersonians" (I love your coined term) and it tells the historic truth. And everyone from Botkin to Grand Duchess Olga can be quoted to that effect. This would balance the damage she did to others, the scoundrel Finny is quite right: that ought to merit a section of its own. See, easy.75.21.145.152 (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• You will mark me as tedious, John, but I ought to expand for you on a part of the little Anna problem: sources. As I said, you're arguing the merits of something like I, Anastasia and with reason. However, I would put it to you that in this particular case, sources should not be used if they don't have to be used absolutely. CASE SCENARIO: If you were to find reasons, as some did, to exclude Kurth on grounds of personal bias, you'd have to afford the same to the other side, even though the other side is the truth. Or to be more clear: which source do we use as the most convenient when referring to Andersonism? We use Kurth. He was her friend, he strove to prove she was Anastasia, he believed her and made a lot of money from her as well. There's a reason for that...scholastically, her debunkers were essentailly ignored until 1998 or so. To rectify all of this, which debunkers do you quote, if any, to strengthen a position that is now well known? You use the scientists' discoveries about Anna's true identity and the mtDNA proof. To borrow a phrase used in the debate, why lengthen the article with tit-for-tat quotes? To re-argue the case? No. It isn't any journalist's job to do that--only to present known facts. You need to get on with the structure/presentation of the entry. Quotes can be plugged in or removed later, per consensus...if you can accomplish it.75.21.147.93 (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson biography or nothing

John, it is entertaining and fruitful for you to fight the editors at Anna's page; they are at last being called out, a reckoning is near. However, if you think you're going to sway them in some way, you've GOT to know you've lost already--they have marked you as the enemy. They will never seriously entertain the suggestions you have made. I love the way you clearly proved their POV agenda-pushing, in manner of content and expression. They'll never let you live it down now. Time for that moron Kiernan to start doing at least part of his job over there. YAWN75.21.103.101 (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you cease the "encouragements" on my talk page? I was hoping that if I ignored you, you'd stop, but that doesn't seem to be working. john k (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I could and I will--gone as soon as this last is posted. May I ask in return that you not take it out on me that you've done nothing on that page, except to indulge those jerks? In any case, you're pretty much a non-entity there, just as aggiebean wanted from day one. Good luck on other better endeavours.75.21.99.46 (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I thnk someone with your understanding of politics ought to participate in this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

India or Indian Empire

User:23prootie has changed the national description from India to Indian Empire again at World War II Casualties, I am frustrated by his edits and I am trying my best to avoid an edit war, User:23prootie has been blocked a number of times for disruptive editing. I have started a thread on the talk page.Talk:World War II casualties#Werner Gruhl--Woogie10w (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Your Opinion would be appreciated

I would appreciate your comments regarding the use of sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sources for WW2 losses in Asia

Thanks --Woogie10w (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs

Did you catch this development, Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs? The old template for post-1707 monarchs got deleted in favour of a pc monstrosity. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just anxious, that we present the fact that the Scottish & English monarchies became the British monarchy. Not, the false claim that the English monarchy expanded & was re-named the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying: England is the dominant partner. What I'm saying is the 1707 Act of Union present it as otherwise. Keep the Scottish & English monarchs in the Template, as we got seperate articles List of English monarchs, List of Scottish monarchs & List of British monarchs. Either that or 'split' the Template 3-ways (English, Scottish & British). Just don't go back to 'English and British'. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the changes you & Deacon have made. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at WW2 Casualties

Please review my post at Talk:World War II casualties#Civilian Casualties in Asia. What is your opinion?--Woogie10w (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A kindly request

Yes, I know how revolting I am to you--but I'm here solely to enquire: since I do enjoy keeping up with the debates at Anna Anderson, and I think this would please everyone, could you suggest the archiving of the discussion? It isn't selfish, that thing's getting hard to read, and way too long. It doesn't look logical to have that hanging in the open and I don't think the majority of the page needs to be immediately seen. It looks like older posts at the very least can be archived and Kiernan is good at that. Ask him?

• I wanted to be rightly understood: I don't mean hide anything or other nefarious activities. I meant what I wrote before: take some of the crap out of there and archive it, especially places where you and aggiebean argue something like 3,000 words over the cart story. Sorry, but I can't help the feeling I've always had that none of you wants this thing to be completed, ever. Now I'm officially gone. And don't tell yourself, "Yeah, I've heard that from him before," because we all err, do we not?75.21.99.125 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Privy Counsellors (1910-1936)

Hi John. Whitaker Almanacs of 1947 (pg 250) & 1952 (pg 256) specifically state: His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council: Gloucester, H.R.H. Duke of, 1935. Only in later editions under; Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council is this dated 1925. As such, I raised this matter with you on 3rd March 2009, (on your talk page; no# 205: "Missing HRH Privy Counsellor") to which you replied on same day on my talk page. I also stated this matter on the (List of Privy Counsellors (1910-1936)) talk page. Can you tell me why you now think the later 1925 date is correct, rather than the original 1935 date? Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again & thanks for your reply. In further reference (to the LoPC (1910-36)); When I get a Whitakers edition; 1925 to 1935, if he's not listed. I must accept the 1935 date, and edit the article accordingly. If thats OK? Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - July 2009

The July 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16(talk)

Orléans (Régent) Prince du Sang

John, please go to Prince du Sang talk page for answer to your question. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland vote template fix

Hi John,

Per here, could you carry out the "edit protected" requested hered. No-one is respoding to the edit protected template and I'd like it fixed before the we get more problems on the Ireland vote.

Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, John K. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Soul on Ice

Hi, FYI: In August 2008 you posted to Talk:Soul on Ice, asking that an article be created on Eldridge Cleaver's influential book of that title. I've just posted a note on this problem to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_African_diaspora asking for a disamb page to be created, along with the appropriate article on the book. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)